Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Hey Obama, Mud Fights Might Look Tempting, But Don't Jump in

By Bob Herbert, The New York Times. Posted March 9, 2008.


Barack Obama can’t win wrestling in the mud with Hillary Clinton. That will not put him in the White House.
Advertisement

The high anxiety in the Obama circles has thrown the campaign off its game.

Samantha Power, one of Senator Barack Obama's senior foreign policy advisers, had to quit Friday after she lost her cool in an interview with a Scottish newspaper and called Senator Hillary Clinton a "monster."

The campaign apologized for the flap. But Mr. Obama himself seems unsure of how to respond to the trash-and-thrash tactics that helped Senator Clinton defeat him in Ohio and Texas this week.

The anger that caused Ms. Power to blurt out the monster comment is widespread inside the Obama camp. But Senator Obama, for a variety of reasons -- some of them self-imposed -- is sharply constrained in the way that he can respond to provocations.

And if there is one thing the Clinton crowd knows how to do, it's provoke.

On Thursday, Senator Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, likened Senator Obama to Ken Starr, the independent prosecutor who hounded the Clintons in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Why the Clinton forces would want to inject that poisonous bit of business into the campaign is a mystery.

But there was Mr. Wolfson on Thursday, in response to a call from the Obama campaign for Mrs. Clinton to release her tax returns, asserting: "I, for one, do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."

More serious was Senator Clinton's assertion that she was qualified to be commander in chief, and that John McCain had also "certainly" crossed that "threshold," but that the jury was still out on Mr. Obama.

In other words, if a choice on national security had to be made today between Senators Obama and McCain, voters -- according to Mrs. Clinton's logic -- should choose Senator McCain.

That is a low thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to do to a rival in a party primary. Can you imagine John McCain saying that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or even the guitar-strumming Mike Huckabee might be less qualified than Hillary Clinton to be commander in chief? It couldn't happen.

But Senator Clinton never gave a second thought to opening the trap door beneath her fellow Democrat.

And then there was Mrs. Clinton on "60 Minutes," being interviewed by Steve Kroft. He had shown a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he'd heard that Senator Obama didn't know the national anthem, "wouldn't use the Holy Bible," and was a Muslim.

Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

As far as I know.

If she had been asked if she thought President Bush was a Muslim, would her response have included the caveat "as far as I know"? What about Senator McCain? Why, then, with Senator Obama?

In the run-up to the crucial Texas and Ohio primaries, the plan in the Clinton camp, as The Times reported, was to unleash as many lines of attack as possible -- a "kitchen sink" fusillade -- in the hope that something would work. Senator Obama is still trying to figure out how to respond.

Whatever anger and frustration he may be feeling, he should stick to the high road. He can't win wrestling in the mud with Hillary Clinton. That will not put Barack Obama in the White House.

Mr. Obama's strength was his message of hope and healing, the idea that he could bring disparate groups together to work on the nation's toughest problems. That has gotten him this far, which is much further than almost anyone expected.

He now needs an added dimension. He needs to articulate a vision. He needs to spell out to voters where he wants to take this country over the next few years, how he will alleviate the suffering of millions trapped in vicious economic circumstances and what he will do to restore the honor and prestige of the U.S. around the world.

Political campaigns are not about fairness, but they can often be about vision. Voters want more from Senator Obama.

He may not be able to close the deal with, say, working-class whites, but he more than anyone else has the eloquence to try and make a compelling case. He should go for it.

We have seen election after election in which candidates have won by fanning the anxieties of voters. Elect me, or something terrible will happen to you!

That is now the Clinton mantra, which is a measure of how grim our politics have become.

© 2007 The New York Times

AlterNet is making this New York Times material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton, barack obama

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Facts are not mud, facts are just facts and the voters deserve the TRUTH
Posted by: foreverhope on Mar 9, 2008 2:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama will have held elected office for 12 years before becoming President. Hillary Clinton will only have held office for 8 years.
While Clinton claims experience from her husband’s presidency, she will not release her White House papers to let us know specifically what that experience is.

When Obama asks for tax returns, Hillary is the VICTIM of an ATTACK by that mean ole Obama that may be a Muslim, as far as she knows or doesn't know at least she hasn't heard otherwise.... A mean black Muslim man is attacking a poor defenseless white woman here. Justice must be served before...
Its all too disgusting to think about.

Enough is enough.

There is no "Commander in Chief threshold". What an obvious fabrication. There is no magic line which, once crossed, makes you equally qualified as everyone else who has crossed it.

And how is she qualifed? She doesn't really say because there is nothing she can point to. She implies it is because her experience and because a lot of retired officers -- who owe allegiance to her husband -- are willing to sit next to her. On these grounds (which are false), if she is better qualified than Obama, then McCain is better qualified than Hillary.

It is demeaning for her to say she and McCain have a lifetime of experience, whereas Obama has only a single speech. Her life counts, but not his? She's older, so she has more experience (McCain again trumps her)? Being a wife and having tea and cookies as a good will 'ambassador', or helping Wal-Mart take advantage of its workers, is relevant experience, but organizing poor citizens to take power in their communities is not? Her lies make me ill.

Hillary has endorsed McCain and Laura Bush has Commander-In-Chief credentials?

The more she campaigns, the stronger McCain becomes. Why are people putting up with this?

By 1998 under the Clinton co-presidency, the GOP gained 48 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, and 1,254 seats in state legislatures, and that during their tenure, 439 (out of 1,998 Democrats) became Republicans as opposed to 3 Republicans who became Democrats.

The "hillary group" doesn't seem to grasp exactly what she has done. I have never heard ANY dem candidate trash another dem candidate in favor of the repug nominee! NEVER. This is the most whacked thing Ms. "I am so honored to be on the stage with Barack Obama" has done yet! UNBELIEVABLE!

As a former (Bill) Clinton supporter (yes, even during the KEN STARR ERA...........), this form of post-victory pile-on and crowing from the HRC camp is totally disgusting, and I think this new stuff (MCCAIN IS SUCH A GREAT GUY... OBAMBA = KEN STARR etc) is the final straw for me personally. If she pulls this off and manages to swindle the nomination, I will:

A. withdraw from the Democratic party rolls, cease contribution, and register as an independent.

B. Write-in Senator Obama's name in November and encourage all of my fellow Obama supporters and friends to do the same.

Five months is plenty of time to organize a write-in campaign.

I would rather lose with an honorable Obama than win with a Traitorous McClinton.
Enough is enough. Set some standards of decency. Stand up to the Clinton slime machine, Get a grip and make a stand.

As Americans we should be outraged not only at the tactics of the Clinton campaign, but also at the audacity of elevating the candidate of the opposition party over a democratic candidate currently leading in delegate counts.

The Super Delegates should be running from Hillary and Bill Clinton. She has shown them that she would rather tear the party down and endorse the Republican candidate than lose the primary to Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Trash her? Hillary in Ireland? Posted by: foreverhope
» Yes, no more trash! Posted by: Verjenie
» Whose running for president? Posted by: Verjenie
» PS More transparancy is GOOD! Posted by: Verjenie
Clinton blew it
Posted by: Hans B on Mar 9, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not an American but I follow these elections closely since everything not located in outer space depends on them. I've said many times the Dems should be happy to have such good candidates. But now I'm afraid I have to take those words back. Hillary Clinton overtly preferring Mr bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran (while bankrupting the US and turning Iraq into a violent colony) McCain to her fellow Democrat Obama is below despicable. If her judgment is that bad, she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the nuclear button, any more than her hothead Republican best friend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the dust settles
Posted by: Quasar on Mar 9, 2008 4:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't support Obama if I didn't trust him to make the right calls and know where to draw the line.

He does have to be more aggressive and direct in his approach to Clinton, because she has shown that anything goes at this point. She has too many women wrapped around her finger and will push the gender issue anyway that serves her best. With everyone else, she plays to fears over hope, conventional experience over leadership and the ease of familiarity to the courage to create change.

It's a sucker's bargain and Obama has even more work to do to convince her supporters that her whole candidacy is a false choice. McCain is, by her own admission, even more experienced than she is! So what's the point? It's absurd.

Just last week I entertained the notion that should Obama lose the nomination he should complete the ticket with Clinton. I thought I was being pragmatic. I now realize that that is just another gambit by the Clintons - not the democrats - to regain the Whitehouse. It may work, but it is yet another false choice because one, Obama has the upper hand from here to the convention so why should he bother and two, he will never do it anyway because it would undermine most of what his candidacy has been about. I don't care that their policies stances are similar or even the same. I care about who pushes these policies forward.

Clinton's sole advantage is her experience as a trench warfare campaigner. It may not be enough anyway but it may destoy the dems chances along the way. Obama can take the high road but he may have to have someone riding shotgun until the dust settles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When the dust settles Posted by: Lauren
» RE: When the dust settles Posted by: kimbari
» Really????? Posted by: Verjenie
» RE: eally????? yes Posted by: foreverhope
» more clinton camp hypocrisy Posted by: Drclaw
» more clinton camp hypocrisy Posted by: Drclaw
Mud Fight Anyone? Substitution! William Eon in for The Big O!
Posted by: williameon on Mar 9, 2008 5:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big O
Take a break.
I’ve got it.
I’ll jump right in.
I’ve played this game before
Get down.
Down and Dirty.

I’ve literally have shoveled Pig shit
For a living
So I know what I am taking about.
BU__! SH__!
Is fertilizer to me.
More ammo please.

Die Bold
John Stewart
And
S.& L. Live.

It’s too late to come out of the closet
And talk about the Boy King.

Seven long years and
Nothing was done.
Sitting on your laurels
Now that’s
Pathetic.

All the Mass Medias
Horses and Men
Can ever put
The Witch
Together again.

What about?
All the
Media Megalomanics,
Stolen selections,
and
Prime time confessions.

Mrs. Clinton
How can you help us now?
The damage is done
We are suffering from the consequences.

You take all the credit for the good
And none
For the bad.
Who’s responsible?

You are sleeping with the wrong people
You’ve failed us and
Yourself.

More War
Is the wrong answer?
Get out of the way.
We are changing direction.

Two paths diverged in a yellow wood.
We are taking the other path.
Less traveled!

Sorry!
No more
Marriages for convenience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sexist and foolish Posted by: Verjenie
» She sent a signed letter. Posted by: Verjenie
» OBAMA WON A GRAMMY Posted by: Prairie Waif
Hillary is Splitting the Democratic Party
Posted by: sofla100 on Mar 9, 2008 5:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary is playing a dangerous game by going after Obama on trivia. That one of Obama's aids made some gaffe, in response, is not surprising. Even if Hillary gets the nomination, she runs the big risk that the party will not unify during or after the convention. If the party cannot unify, the election might as well be given to McCain. Presumably, if Hillary gets the nomination, she might offer Obama the VP slot, but would he even accept? Hillary should stop playing "gotcha" with Obama and focus on the issues, especially what separates the Dems from McCain. The voters and the delegates will decide the best candidate based more on showing "presidential stature" then the game playing. I also don't think anyone wants to hear how Hillary supposedly has "more experience" then Obama, when she really does not (being Bill's wife was a prison sentence, not meaningful experience). Also, quit trying to twist Obama's words and focus (Hillary) on your own game. Like explaining to us how you do not support the Iraq war and NAFTA when everything you've done in the past says you did. That Obama doesn't throw this back at you more then he has, only shows, I believe, that he cares more for the unity of the party and a Democratic victory in November. And, I call that showing "presidential stature."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can Obama beat McCain if he won't fight back against Clinton?
Posted by: aethr on Mar 9, 2008 5:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe he doesn't need to get into the mud but he's got to fight back. If he can't fight against Clinton on her relatively minor attacks now he has no chance against McCain. The Republicans will throw ten times as much at him in the general election. It's time for Obama to show he knows how to fight or step aside for a more experienced candidate who can and will fight for victory in the general election. Elections aren't about playing nice. They're about winning. You can't bring change if you can't win and you can't win if you can't fight.

"As far as I know" was the correct response from Clinton. The attacks about being muslim are not Clinton's problem. They are Obama's problem. It's up to him to deal with them. If they're getting passed on to Clinton it's because Obama hasn't responded effectively. It's time for Obama to step up or step aside.

Does nobody remember Kerry? It's only been four years ago. He was ahead in the polls when the Democratic primary finished. Then he lost because he wouldn't or couldn't fight back against some serious smears. Do Democrats enjoy picking losers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OMG! Her voice! Posted by: foreverhope
» you only prove my point Posted by: Drclaw
» NO! I was with you on THAT! Posted by: Prairie Waif
» oops! Posted by: Drclaw
Herbert's right-on, sort of
Posted by: happyhermit on Mar 9, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the whole thing is about "themes." obama's "Change" theme is wearing thin, in my opinion, and Clinton is picking up this new "fighter" theme, and it's working, even if it is unethical. Obama needs a new theme, and i think it can be constructed directly in response to clinton's low-blows: take the high road. find some really coherent strategy to stand on and go with it.

i don't think that randomly declaring that you're going to solve the problems of working america is the new theme to have. i mean, first of all, it's dishonest, and clinton's policies might even vaguely be more beneficial to working class citizens. but secondly, they've both been saying this the whole time, just like every politician ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sorry Posted by: happyhermit
» RE: don't be sorry Posted by: Lauren
Facts
Posted by: Jeanne on Mar 9, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary's record, such as it is, should be enough to lose her the Democratic nomination. She voted for the war in Iraq. Period. No argument, it's a matter of record. She can soft shoe around it, try to claim she was amazed that W would invade. But, authorization to unilaterally use force is just what it says, "I vote for your war."

And while we're on the subject of records and experience, I don't think 8 years as First Lady, no matter how much interest she took in Bill's presidency, rises to the level of "experience" to be president. The job description is completely different. And, if she was, indeed, involved on a strategic and security-clearance level on matters of military and state, well, that might be a whole other can of worms that Clinton wouldn't want officially opened. Should that have been the case, which is the implication if she is trying to use this ceremonial position in her curriculum vitae, would this mean that electing her as president will result in Bill Clinton as her co-president? (Not that he did such a bad job, compared to W.) Fact is, she has only two years (give or take) of senate experience more than Obama, who held elected state office in Illinois prior to his election to US Senate. That's more elected experience than Hillary.... So, if experience = age, well, Hillary's got Obama beat. But if experience = elected offices held, then, well, you do the math.

There's no need to go to the mud. Stick to the documented history.

Oh, and on the mud thing -- whose campaign resurrected the whole Whitewater/Ken Starr fiasco? Hillary's campaign. You'd think they wouldn't want the public to be reminded of names like McDougall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Facts Posted by: happyhermit
» RE: Facts Posted by: Lauren
The Right Approach
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Mar 9, 2008 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Obama team can and should point out differences in records and positions, but do so without being shrill, petty and puerile. They can draw comparisons in logical, respectful and objective language. They should steer clear of ad hominem attacks and concentrate on substantive issues, and they should respond to the inevitable barrage of Clintonite defamation candidly, calmly and definitively, backing up their assertions with documentation.

The more they do so, the more apparent it will be that there are not only differences of positions and records, but of temperament as well, which will redound to Obama's advantage.

We've had 15 years of partisan bickering, triangulation and hardball politics, and at a time when we are faced with unprecedented military, foreign relations, economic, environmental and health care crises we need a conciliatory, consensus-building leader, not a sleazy politician.

Finally, Obama should not evade controversial issues such as Rezco and some of his votes on war issues. He needs to explain himself clearly , acknowledge mistakes, and keep a positive tone. Tu quoque defenses and evasions will only hurt him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imho experience = elected office
Posted by: RobNLA on Mar 9, 2008 9:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama needs to attack Clinton on her vast experience and cut it down, but with honest facts. He should point out over and over again, I have more experience as an elected representative of voters than her.

Hillary shouldn't get a free pass to claim years as first lady. Those years are important, but people voted for Bill (and some still are in the primaries), not for her. And if she wants to claim experience as first lady, then she needs to release those records so voters can take a hard look at that experience.

Obama needs to make Hillary back up her claims of vast experience with details. What did she accomplish for voters all those years? Nobody has asked such a fundamental question in the press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary's risky bet
Posted by: macktan on Mar 9, 2008 10:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More than anything, Hillary wants to be president and damn anybody who stands in the way of her assuming the throne.

Even if it means angering Obama supporters, Hillary will do what has to be done. Why?

Faced with a choice between Hillary and McCain/Bush, what would you do?

After she wins the nomination, in her mind, she'll look after the wounded. She'll invite black people into her campaign, she'll do anything to get back the voters who have come to despise her because after all, who wants 4 more years or more of George Bush?

But it won't be that easy, Hillary. A third party would indeed solidify but before that pressure like you've never felt before to bow out will descend upon you. Why? Because Obama winning will not cause the rift that Hillary winning would. A rift that would pale in comparison to what was unfairly heaped upon Nader in 2000.

Unless she bows out, this gets real ugly and the Democratic party, already in low disregard for its namby pamby behavior under bush, might dissolve altogether.

People might even start fighting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary's risky bet Posted by: Lauren
Hey, Obama
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 10, 2008 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't make the same stupid mistake that cost Gore and Kerry the election. When someone lies about you or distorts what you said, especially when the "liberal" media pick it up and run with it you must come out to repudiate it with facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey, Obama Posted by: Lauren
The New York Times has its own agenda!
Posted by: Abushite on Mar 10, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary's Deceipt (should that read Receipt?!)

Surely Mrs Clinton must be the best candidate for the economy ? Anyone who can turn $1,000 into $100,000 in a week can save the Planet - imagine what she could do for the USA.
read on :-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707731/posts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The videos Hillary Clinton does NOT want you to see!
Posted by: jhecht on Mar 10, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

part 2 - spread it wide & far!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Presidential Experience
Posted by: Abushite on Mar 10, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of the combatants have presidential experience. For Mrs Clinton to claim that she would know what to do at 3 o'clock in the morning is nonsense, that claim seems extraordinary when she had no idea what her husband was doing to a young intern in a nearby room every day.
If she knew , then she should tell us why she kept quiet, why ! Is it probable that if she had blown the whistle - then she would no longer stay in the White House. Is that why her daughter, has been forbidden to speak to the for 10 years press. Mrs. Clinton are you a control freak !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Presidential Experience Posted by: seilnotnilc
Calling the Arm Twisting for politics as usual
Posted by: GPFrank on Mar 10, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Calling the Arm Twisting for politics as Usual

The Clinton Camp is putting on the proverbial arm twist to bring Mr. Obama down to their level.
Thinking about how to approach the desired dilemma that otherwise could bring down the Democratic Party It might help by beginning with the praseology of my first sentence here. That would be telling it as it is without direct reference to character.

Then the campaign might tell the story of late Vince Lombardi,coach of the late coach of the Wisconsin whose doctrine was "Winning is the only thing." I read reports from blogs that there is internal dissension among Clinton's campaign staff on how far to get on "fouls" But let's hear the champion coach's later take on this issue:

(Wilkipedia):In response to growing criticism surrounding the credo, Lombardi eventually came to regret the "winning is the only thing" statement and offered a repudiation, implying that what he meant to say was, “Winning is not everything - but making the effort to win is." Those sympathetic to Lombardi downplayed his use of the original quote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama just as dirty as Clinton
Posted by: B. Spoon on Mar 10, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How I wish I could believe he is the real deal (he talks a great talk) but I'm from Illinois where he's not so new. I watched him help gut real health care reform here. I heard him when he was one of nine running for senator deliver a very disappointing, misleading and dishonest reply to the "How do we save Medicare and SS" question. He gave one speech against the war, then shut up about it for quite some time while it was politically expedient to do so, and has voted with Hillary to continue funding our Occupation of Iraq every opportunity he's had. Democrats just like him (I call them neo-liberals) have been in full control in Illinois for seven years now. Obama HUGS state senate leader Evil Jones, when instead Barack should be repulsed by the harm that man has done to our people (taking sides with energy companies, health insurers, etc, against us). I used to be hopeful too but all they've proven is that they can rule just as corruptly as Republicans. Both Obama and Clinton are corporate Democrats (called "neo-liberals") and are not on "we the people's" side but work pretty hard to try to convince us that they are. Relative to Republicans I suppose they are, but that's not saying much. The more I learn about both, the more dissappointed and saddened I become. I can't tell you how much I wish the opposite were true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Create new vision and values statements for an Obama Presidency
Posted by: mpeterson321905 on Mar 10, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think the mud slinging by the Clinton Campaign was what gave Hillary the lead in the Ohio and Texas Primaries. The impressions of those ads were that she was "grasping at straws".

As a person entranced with this campaign, and an Obama campaign contributor and supporter, I was disappointed to hear alot of repetition in Senator Obama's speeches leading up to March 4th. They got boring. "Good ideas die in Washington" - So, he could talk about the values and vision that will LIVE and THRIVE in an Obama presidency.

Instead of sinking to typical mud-slinging, that many Americans are tired-of, Senator Obama could continue to build the American success and leadership vision, by creating additional values statements that tell the story of the peace, prosperity and government teambuilding that will be the hallmark of an Obama presidency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

walking an impossibly thin line
Posted by: loyaloposition on Mar 10, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I would like to believe the nation is color and gender blind, I am a pragmatist. Obama, knows better than all of us that a black male attacking a white female will give the press what they want and pull all sorts of buried triggers. Just like most women and all people of color know, Obama has to be "fairer" and better at sticking to the "rules" than his opponent even while others around him are changing the rules and trying to taunt him into a fight. Hillary is using the techniques of the lowest of race baiters in order to tempt Obama to act out. Then she and others can say, "see what you happens when you let a black man into our club." It was technique used during the marches in the 60s, it was done when change was forced in the south, in professional sports and it still happens when women break through the glass ceiling in business and their male counterparts try to break them emotionally. Stooping to HIllary's level would be a mistake, however Obama needs to refute what is not true and point out when she is breaking the rules of the game she agreed to. Including pointing out that she signed up to be a democrat, not a McCain endorsing, war voting, Joe Leiberman republicrat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gemajabe
Posted by: gemajabe on Mar 10, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, you don't like Hillary Clinton and want Obama to win. However, the way you seized on the "as far as I know" comment by Hillary Clinton is really reaching. She did not say anything out of the way. It would have been nice if Obama or any of the candidates, for that matter, had had the guts to say-this is a diverse country representing many different kinds of religions-we all have to get along and respect each other. Asking if I am a Muslim is NOT an insult-. And oh for that far off golden goal in the future-that a candidate did not have to profess adherence to religion to run for President. OR BE A MALE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hillary is a brilliant lawyer Posted by: foreverhope
» Damn damn All Lawyers!!!! Posted by: Verjenie
Mudfights and the lowering of standards!
Posted by: pvanderk on Mar 10, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am Canadian and therefore cannot vote in any American elections. Even so, I have wanted to share with you some thoughts and observations about the battle for the White House presently being waged.

As Bob Herbert (NY Times) strongly suggested, Senator Obama should resist the temptation to get involved in a mud slinging contest with his primary competition, Sen H Clinton. The reasons for my backing that position are based on the options which are currently being presented by the Dem. contenders.

What strikes me are the strident efforts by certain parties to prove that they are THE one with the qualifications to become the Commander in Chief --- as if being the Commander in Chief is THE reason for becoming president.

The reason Sen Obama, in my opinion, has been doing so well at the ballot box is a mindset which seems to be focused on the restoration of American status in the community of nations rather then on the build-up of the largest military aparatus. Most of the talk in the media and between the contestants is about the capability and authority to push the red "war" button.

Sen Obama, in my opinion again, is the one who continues to promote peacable and co-operative solutions. It is he who demonstrates that by earning the trust of people around the world the safety and well-being of humanity is regained.

Are those pipe dreams? They may be, but at least I know that the direction in which he seems to be leading is solidly based on the Christian religion many of us subscribe to.

Again, I can not vote in your elections, but again, I can add my voice to the chorus of people who have had it with the traditional way of governing and who promote dreams of a more peaceful and just society.

I wish him hard work and good success. Whatever you do Senator Obama, don't despair and don't get in the mud. Keep inviting people to help you paint a better scenario! You provide the opportunity, they'll come!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr.
Posted by: bar5608 on Mar 10, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama would just step up to the microphone at the next opportunity, and say that he thinks Hilary would be an excellant president, as would he himself, he could accomplish several things.
It might not help Hillary, but it would save the Party, put an end to the mud slinging, set the Media on it's ear, pull the rug out from under McCain, and might just put him in the White house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama has been flinging the mud since NH!
Posted by: BayAreaVoter on Mar 10, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on people, get real! The Obama campaign has been flinging the mud since he lost NH! There was a four-page memorandum on how to accuse Clinton of racism and it went from there!

He continually distorts Hillary's record and makes false statements about his own.

Fortunately the press is beginning to expose him for the fraud that he is! The little myth about the Golden Boy is beginning to unravel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shirl
Posted by: toots on Mar 10, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At first I didin't care which one came out lst, I did lean toward Obama.
She is going over the line, I hope he keeps his campaign clean and good, which is what we think he is. A GOOD MAN and lord knows we need one at this point and time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Perspective...
Posted by: dave16 on Mar 10, 2008 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please see www.discussrace.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obamaniacs Rejoice!
Posted by: B. Spoon on Mar 10, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama wins the nomination he wins. If Hillary wins the nomination, Obama wins too. How so? Because Hillary would have to be stupid (which she's not) to not appoint Obama as her running mate. The two working together would be formidable. Obama would have to be stupid (which he's not) to not accept her offer. But I don't think there's any way Obama would return the favor if he wins the nomination. If he's VP first, there's a very good chance Democrats could rule the White House for the next 16 years. Your Barack Star is a sure-fire winner either way. (Six words: Supreme Court, Hundred Years of War.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I think you missed Posted by: B. Spoon
Who's right?
Posted by: willymack on Mar 10, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama puts me in mind of Adlai Stephenson back in 1952. I hadn't attained my thirteenth birthday then, but I was struck by Stephenson's obvious qualifications for the office of President. His diction was perfect. He was a brilliant intellectual. He possessed vast knowlege of our government and world affairs. In short, he was the perfect candidate for our nation's highest office. His candidicacy was doomed from the start because of Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower, a man with a dynamite smile and war hero status. We got lucky with "Ike" as he turned out to be a pretty good president. It seems that then as now, the more highly qualified person for the job doesn't automatically win the election. Our people are as anti-intellectual as any on this globe, and it's hurt us on many occasions, but none as much as with bush, that phony Texan and tinhorn,who, with the help of Poppie's boys, stole the 2000 "election" from the winner, Al Gore, and proceeded to steal everything that wasn't nailed down and ruin everything our people held dear. There, again, a quiet, urbane, and polished intellectual lost out to a phony, the good ole boys wanted to have a beer with. Now, we have not one, but TWO polished, sophisticated, and erudite intellectuals vying for the Democratic nomination. So, wihch one of these is right? Either would be a vast improvement over the chump-in-charge, so in my mind they're BOTH right-a lot more right than mcnut. If enough of our people are as stupendously stupid as they were in '00 & '04 and make this a close race, it's a cinch the rethugs will steal the '08 election too. We've got to get behind one of the two highly qualified Democratic candidates, and soon, in enough numbers to affect a landslide in November, one too obvious for the rethugs to falsify.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ike got Bam-Boozeled by the CIA! Posted by: williameon
Obama DID win Texas
Posted by: veraeve on Mar 10, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or at least that was reported to be the case on NPR over the last week. Let's get on board supporting him with facts that are accurate and don't lend a hand to other campaigns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama DID win Texas
Posted by: veraeve on Mar 10, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or at least that was reported to be the case on NPR over the last week. Let's get on board supporting him with facts that are accurate and don't lend a hand to other campaigns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama doesn't need to go negative on Clinton, but on EMPIRE
Posted by: amacd on Mar 10, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Herbert on Obama keeping a positive disposition and tone, despite the monstrous mud-slinging of this MONSTER Clinton.

It is amazing how little MSM coverage there has been of Hillary Clinton’s four (4) deceitful, back-stabbing attacks on the leading Democrat candidate (Obama) last week.

As Maureen Dowd said of Clinton’s destructive trashing of the leading Democrat [which still goes unreported by the NY Times / Clinton machine], “What could be more shameless than suggesting to Democrats that John McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama?”

Several of the Sunday shows re-ran the video of Hillary earlier this week, saying that Obama is less qualified than McCain to be Commander in Chief ---- and take those 3AM crisis phone calls.

There is no way to spin this --- Hillary has said that the leading candidate of her party is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief.

Such a statement is beyond the pale (although I can think of many other descriptions, such as ‘pond scum’).

I just finished reading Susan Faludi's fabulous new book, "The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in post 9/11 America"

Hillary should read it. She would then realize how much harm she has done to her party.

Not only has she emasculated Obama, but in her selfish and totally misplaced attempt to 'go negative' on him she has likely handed McCain an insurmountable psychological edge over any Democrat ---- in that a contest based on macho toughness, applies at a deep sub-conscious level, an advantage to just the sort of tightly wound, vicious, vengeance / protector image that exactly matches the image of McCain that most Americans hold.

Hillary may not only have handed McCain an edge over Obama, but also herself.

Talk about 'going negative'?

Clinton is emasculating and destroying the leading Democratic candidate.

And for what?

Imagine if Clinton were to become president now, and dealing with foreign leaders.

Won't it be helpful for the US to have every foreign leader thinking, "Oh, yea, I'm going to trust this bitch who stuck a knife in the back of her own party's leading candidate, and only won, by saying that he would not be as capable a commander in chief as the Republican opponent"?

How could most foreign leaders ever trust someone that low?

So what should Obama do to positively counter this deceit and shameful behavior?

GO LEFT young man, GO LEFT.

And GO POPULIST young man, GO POPULIST.

That's the real opportunity to cash in on Obama's vision, hope and popular appeal.

Obama should increase the populist tone against the corporatist Empire that is at the heart of all our problems --- both foreign wars and domestic oppression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Absolutely no Obama-Hillary (or Hillary-Obama) Ticket
Posted by: dayahka on Mar 10, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can one agree with someone 1000 percent? Ok, I know, 100 is the limit, but frankly, you hit every nail right on the head. Hillary is an unscrupulous and hysterical psychopath who should never again be anywhere near power. And she and Bill are also blatant racists in suggesting number 2 for Obama and number 1 for Hillary (after all, for racists blacks should never be number one). And also racist is Hillary's irrelevant putdown that Obama is not C-in-C material at 46, but Bill was at 46, the only difference being race. The barnyard Clintons need to be shoveled out of our lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How low Hillary Clinton can go?
Posted by: tundanonga on Mar 11, 2008 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beeing a no American citizen, but a cosmopolitan citizen, I'm asking myself: does the Democrats deserve a so tricky candidate like HRC? No! Do the USA deserve a President like HRC? No! She can and will be worst than her husband and Bush jr put together. I remember Monica Lewinsky and I'm asking myself, wenn HCR is talking about experience and about her experience in the White House: Hillary Clinton will do the samme things like Bill, sharing the same experience. better McCain than HCR, if Obama cann't make it beacuse of the tricky Clintons. Joshua Shungu Tundanonga

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama = real change
Posted by: Noah_Scape on Mar 11, 2008 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama should stay focused on his most attractive qualities. For one, he represents "real change" where HRC does not... a white Clinton was just in office but never has America had a colored person for Pres, and his name is not Clinton or Bush.

HRC is so typical of what has come before. The bashing is so typical of elections. Obama did well before by staying out of the insults game and it was refreshing.

If he cannot win on that basis, he should pretend he doesn't want the job. That will be so attractive to voters, when the actual election comes along, that the DRC could not deny him the appointment as their candidate. This is not the election yet, this is just to impress the committee and running Hill down is not necessary. This is just a test before running against an even more entrenched-in-the-old-boys-club opponent McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Herbert- Obamaholic
Posted by: epd071148 on Mar 11, 2008 7:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wasn't it Obama who started this divisiveness by stating that, while Clinton supporters would vote for him, his supporters would never vote for Clinton? You & the other media shills have allowed Obama to ply his passive-aggressive attacks. He's too pure to engage in character assassination directly. However, he cravenly leaves that to his