Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 28th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

It's Obama, stupid: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 April 2008
DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.
Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.

Obama has an almost unassailable lead in the battle for nomination delegates, and is closing the gap with Clinton in her last stronghold, Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22.

Clinton remains publicly defiant, insisting she will continue the battle with Obama all the way to the Democratic convention in August – when superdelegates, or party top brass, will have the chance to add their weight to primary votes.

But the party's top brass have concluded her further participation in the race can only harm the party as Republican nominee John McCain strives to take advantage of her increasingly bitter battle with Obama.

Both Carter and Gore occupy the rarefied position of elder statesmen – in addition to their White House past, both are winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, giving them additional gravitas to carry the party with them.

Neither of them is likely to object to the role of bringing down the curtain on Clinton. While neither man has formally endorsed either her or Obama, both have clashed in the past with the Clintons.

Gore blames his loss to George Bush in the 2000 presidential election on the impeachment of Clinton triggered by his White House affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Carter, who has carved out a successful career as an international mediator, is believed to detest the flashy style of the Clintons. He recently told an interviewer that his entire family are committed Obama supporters.

A number of options are being considered by the higher echelons of the Democrats, but they fall roughly into two categories. One is for Carter and Gore to go to Clinton privately and ask her to step down. The other is for both men to appear in public and endorse Obama – a move which would see a majority of superdelegates go with them.

The campaign to force Clinton to make an early exit is being masterminded in Congress, home to the most influential of the superdelegates. Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called on superdelegates to hold an unofficial congress in early June to anoint a winner, rather than waiting for the convention in Denver.

Pelosi has drawn withering fire from the Clinton camp for saying that these superdelegates must follow the national vote, with Clinton insisting that they should "vote with their conscience".

Yet some in the Democratic elite are wary of moving too soon. Polls show that 30% of Clinton's supporters would vote for McCain if she fails to become the nominee. To close off Clinton's bid before millions have had the chance to vote risks causing the very split that officials are desperate to avoid.

But a loss to Obama, or even a single-digit victory, in Pennsylvania will seal Clinton's fate. Pennsylvania is the last big state left in the race, and the last chance for Clinton to claw back Obama's delegate lead. "If he (Obama] wins (Pennsylvania] flat out, I think the big foot will come down," a source said.

Anything less than a resounding victory by her will probably see the race choked off ahead of the final primaries on June 3.

In the 10 remaining primaries, only a catastrophic loss of support by Obama will see Clinton overcome his lead of 160 delegates.

She admits she has little chance of winning the public vote, and is basing her strategy on convincing party-appointed superdelegates that she is, in her own words, the more "electable" of the two candidates.

Clinton enjoys strong support among superdelegates, many from a party elite who worked for her husband Bill during his years in the White House. There are more than 350 superdelegates who have yet to show a preference, potentially enough to rub out Obama's lead and give the presidency to Clinton.

But historically, superdelegates have never gone against the public vote, and party insiders say they would face a revolt, or even riots, if they were to do so now.

Obama's campaign has been a phenomenon in American politics, bringing in record numbers of new voters and record funding, and few think the superdelegates would dare deny him victory if he wins the popular vote.

It would also invite the unedifying spectacle of a mostly white elite denying an African American candidate a chance for the presidency. "It would cause a scandal to do that," says one party official. "To turn around to the black community and say, 'You got the most votes, but no'? Unlikely."

Clinton insists she will see her campaign through to the final primaries in June, and then on to the national convention, where her supporters have powerful lobbies in the organising committees.

But a chain of events in the past two weeks has worked to undermine this strategy, pulling the rug from under her claim to be more experienced and better organised than Obama.

It began with her extraordinary suggestion that she braved sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, a statement contradicted by TV footage showing the event was peaceful.

There are suggestions that the long list of wealthy benefactors may be expecting favours to be returned once Hillary is in the White House, suggestions sharpened by the Clinton's refusal to release the list of donors to the William J. Clinton Presidential Library.

Such conflict-of-interest issues came into the open last week when it emerged that Clinton's chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, was lobbying for the Colombian government to secure a free trade agreement with America, despite Clinton's public opposition to such a deal. Penn stepped down, the second high-profile sacking of a campaign manager this year.

Together with reports that Clinton's money troubles have left her unable to pay event organisers and even the health insurance of her staff, the impression is of a campaign in trouble.

These issues have undermined Clinton's claim to be more "electable", with her own stormy campaign contrasting with the disciplined control of Obama's organisation.

Obama himself has refrained from criticism on these issues, his staff keen to portray their candidate as "presidential" and above the fray.

Conspiracy theorists among her opponents claim Clinton is prolonging the race not because she hopes to win, but to inflict such damage on the party that a weakened Obama loses to John McCain in November, allowing Clinton to have a second tilt at the nomination in four years' time.

For Clinton, defeat in the nomination process would mean consignment to the political wilderness.

Losing nominees rarely get a second chance to run, and although Clinton's seat as a New York senator seems safe, failure in the nomination process leaves her politically neutered.

Talk of a possible consolation prize, in awarding her the job of Senate Majority leader, has petered out with several more senior senators also coveting the job.

Meanwhile, Clinton's poll numbers continue to slide. Obama now leads her nationally by about 10 points, and a CNN poll in Pennsylvania showed him closing the once-yawning gap to just three points.

Should Clinton lose Pennsylvania, the defection of growing numbers of superdelegates from her to Obama could become a flood.

After Pennsylvania

Possible outcomes of the crucial Democrat primary of April 22.

1. Clinton wins big

A win of 20 points or more over Obama in Pennsylvania would keep Clinton's campaign alive. She would also have to replicate this result in the nine states still to vote, narrowing the gap with her rival and convincing the all-important party superdelegates to choose her as nominee.

2. Clinton wins small

A victory in single digits, in a state where Clinton was once 20 points ahead, would make little difference to Obama's lead. Yet a win is a win, and she would be likely to try to stay in the race until June, unless superdelegates stepped in.

3. Obama wins small

A single figure victory on Clinton's 'home turf' would cement Obama's claim to the nomination. Superdelegates would be likely to declare him the nominee before June.

4. Convincing win for Obama

A double-digit Obama victory would be the shock of the primary contest. It would be followed by a stampede of superdelegates rushing to be front of the queue to embrace him.

Obama forced to backtrack

DEMOCRAT Barack Obama last night conceded that comments he made about bitter working-class voters who "cling to guns or religion" were ill chosen, as he tried to stem a burst of complaints that could hurt his chances in upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania and Indiana.

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said, at a campaign rally in Indiana.

As he tried to quell the furore, presidential rival Hillary Clinton hit him with one of her lengthiest and most pointed criticisms, saying: "Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch."

At issue are comments Obama made privately at a fundraiser last Sunday. He explained his troubles winning over white, working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment to explain their frustrations."

The comments, posted on the Huffington Post political website, set off a storm of criticism and threatened to highlight an Obama Achilles' heel – the image that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant, aloof and carries himself with an air of superiority.

The content of this story is disputed by former vice president Al Gore.

The full article contains 1724 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Angus Ogg,

12/04/2008 21:05:48
So I take it an invite from Mr Obama to Hillary Clinton to be his Vice Presidential running mate is out of the question ?

IMHO as an interested overseas observer this would seem like a sensible solution. But so often is the case, common sense does't prevail :@)
2

MarkInAlpine,

Alpine, Texas 13/04/2008 01:18:26
I hope they don't end it yet. It's too entertaining.
3

The Daleks,

Longmen 13/04/2008 01:21:59
At the endof the day, it doesn't matter if it's McCain, Obama, or Clinton.

No matter who you vote for in the US or the UK you're guaranteed to get policies that are bad for you, but good for the money-men.

Mass immigration, outsourcing to Asia, etc, etc.

Good for International Capitalism, bad for the man on the Queens/Clapham/Pilton omnibus.
4

The Daleks,

Longmen 13/04/2008 01:22:27
Wake up folks!!
5

Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi,

San Francisco 13/04/2008 01:31:31
We did not have any truly spectacular candidates left running. Obama would be a threat to the worlds security and ruin the free worlds economy beyond belief. Clinton would take the US 10 steps back and would at a minimum ruin the US economy and McCain I hope will continue the great job Bush has done with the middle east and hopefully fix the failed job Bush has done on domestic spending and the boarder problems with everyone wanting to come to the US illegally.
6

,

13/04/2008 01:48:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 13/04/2008 01:48:26
I'm not sure that having Al Gore on your side is a good thing. Perhaps Clinton would be well advised to hang in there.
8

Tom More,

Canada 13/04/2008 01:55:44
I don't think anything Gore or Carter can do or say will have the slightest effect on the campaign. Gore is still sore at the Clintons for what he considers less than enthusiastic support from them when he ran for president, so any endorsement for Obama coming from him is not unexpected.

Carter is admired for his commitment to social work, but is not a figure of great influence -- regarded by many as one of the worst foreign policy presidents of all time. (And you thought that was George Bush, right?) Obama with or without their support should cruise to the nomination and likely to the presidency, too. He has a left-leaning media that refuses to scrutinize him properly--they love "latte liberals" like themselves--and if you think they gave Clinton a rough ride, wait till you see what they will do to McCain when he is up against their favourite son.
9

benbree,

Virginia 13/04/2008 02:02:20
I do not understand why folks believe it is necessary for Mrs. Clinton to leave the race so the party (and all of us) can rally behind Mr. Obama. I also do not understand the love feast with Mr. Obama. Other than speaking loudly and clearly and saying much the same as any other person trying to win, what really has he done and what really do we know about him. I think it is very opportunistic that he jumped into the race at this time – and I am sure there is some POLITICAL strategist out there who is saying “Wow! I told you he could do it!” Folks this is all politics and Mr. Obama is no different. He wants to win and he will have to pay those who got him there – just like all the other politicians. He is a breath of fresh air and he has many people at the polls that would stay home. This is all good. However, the debate should continue between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. It is good for us. What the leadership of the Democratic Party should do is ensure that all of the Democratic Party members have their say (Florida and Michigan) and then show up at the convention with a winning plan with Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. They are both worthy and we MUST have a Democrat in the white house come 2009.
10

Valsthewoman,

Massillon 13/04/2008 02:10:04
I cannot believe that after Obama pulls such a blunder that could really push Hillary back to the front the Party is trying their hardest to throw her out. Giveme a break. If the dems want to lose in Nov just keep it up. Gore couldn't win so why would Hillary even listen to him??? He ran a campaign that made him look foolish. As for Carter he is foolish enough to go vist Hamas for Gods sake. I wouldn't listen to these old goats for anything. Like Hillary said The boys have always told her to bow out since grade school. It is time for everyone to shut up count Florida and Mi and lets finish the race. It is not over until the last contest has been held. The media needs to let go of their love fest for Obama the media is just becoming sore because they are unable to continue munipulating the people.
11

,

13/04/2008 02:21:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

mjp,

ohio 13/04/2008 02:25:08
Let the people decide on this not these men who think they have a right to dictate the outcome of elections. Their personal issues should have nothing to do with this. Obama has not proven himself and Hillary is a strong woman who can obviously take on whatever she is given. To take this away from the American people would be a travesty. If these super delegates were to comment now or try to influence the outcome at this point would push me to possibly change parties. I would definitely be an Independent. It's hard enough watching what the DNC has done with Florida and Michigan by sticking their noses in. Let's let the people decide this and see what the outcome is.
13

Kelvino,

New York 13/04/2008 02:26:25
I never trust those who are easily offended. . . . .
whether it be Hillary or the uneducated, lazy-minded American consumer. If you can't take Obama's truth then revert back to your former prejudice and pretend that he's just another "upety" black man that you are so afraid of. Stay the course. . . . it's working well, isn't it ?
14

,

13/04/2008 02:31:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Rusty ... Shackleford,

U.S.A. 13/04/2008 02:34:06
The three "major" candidates leave the choice between

A socialist
A sociopath
A psychopath

Ron Paul remains in the race, and will restore the American Republic. No foreign intervention, sound money, small government, and personal liberty.
16

,

13/04/2008 02:36:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Dáithí,

San Jose 13/04/2008 02:45:35
Angus -

I can't speak for Hillary (thank the deity of your choice) but there is a lot of 'baggage' that comes with the job of Vice-President and, thinking of her husband, she has enough baggage.

The biggest danger (IMHO) is that you are not seen as 'the leader', but as an enforcer - and sometimes you have to enforce positions of the President that you don't necessarily agree with.

For instance, Hillary rode her husband's coattails to her current position but is now burdened with trying to shake off his position on NAFTA - which as the first lady she had to forward on behalf of her husband.

Now she looks either weak or duplicitous by claiming that she is against it in the 'rust belt' primaries.

Best bet? Push herself away from Obama, who came from nowhere to deal her a crushing blow - but will drive moderates (75% of Americans) to McCain.

If she loses she is better off to hope for a McCain win, a 4 year tenure, insulation from Obama if he loses on '08, and set herself to run 'against McCain for change' in 2012.

Remember, she's a politician - what is the best for her party or for the people is much lower on the priority scale for her than what is good for her ego.
18

LauraInFlorida,

Florida 13/04/2008 02:53:04
I plan to vote for McCain in the general.

But this story ticks me off. Once again, the boy wants something and the girl is supposed to take the back seat and let him have it. The contest isn't over yet. Hillary has every right to stay in the race as long as she wants to and has the money to fund her candidacy. It is NOT Algore's, Carter's, or anybody else's place to try to force her to hand over the nomination to Obama. If they're so worried about party unity (and they should be worried about it) why is it so unthinkable to ask HIM to step aside? Why does it have to be HER? I shudder to think of her in the White House. But this still stinks.
19

Dáithí,

San Jose 13/04/2008 02:54:22
#8 - Tom

>"Carter is admired for his commitment to social work, but is not a figure of great influence -- regarded by many as one of the worst foreign policy presidents of all time. (And you thought that was George Bush, right?)

Tom - fair assessment, you should post more often.

>"and if you think they gave Clinton a rough ride, wait till you see what they will do to McCain when he is up against their favourite son."

Again, true! My assessment has been that if it was Hillary v McCain. McCain wins, if it is Obama v McCain, Obama wins - and a large part of that is media.

Would you disagree?
20

Willie Macleod,

Wick 13/04/2008 02:57:08
Hillary and Ron should stand down give Obama a clear run against McCain he is the only Candidate who can defeat the Republicans in November. But if this continues it will weaken his position.
21

,

13/04/2008 02:57:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

JudyKR,

Midwest 13/04/2008 03:01:00
Rusty, which one is which?
23

Dáithí,

San Jose 13/04/2008 03:03:24
#18 - Laurain

>"Once again, the boy wants something and the girl is supposed to take the back seat and let him have it."

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying Laurain, but I think that it is more of a black-female thing than a male-female thing.

I think that the Demo's have been exploiting race/gender relations since the '60's, and Hillary fully expected to 'walk' into the nomination having the media on her side precisely because of how her 'the first woman' status would play to the media.

She has been trumped by a well-spoken Black man that has enamored the media even more by HIS 'the first black' status. Someone played the game BETTER than her, and caught the imagination of the party and the media!

I believed that she feels that she has been ROBBED of the nomination!

Right now, she is planning her 2012 campaign. Generals ar always fighting the last war, politicians are always fighting the next election.

If Gore and Carter are going to talk to her, then she is going to demand promises that will get her the nomination in '12.

Written and on tape, if necessary. Guaranteed.
24

,

13/04/2008 03:25:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

Frustated Democrat,

Michigan 13/04/2008 03:31:16
Hi there #21

Go to the court website and look for yourself. Sen Clinton and her Senate Campaign ARE IN FACT defendants in the case. I have read the court documents. She was served on the campaign trail along with their daughter who was 18, Chelsea is a witness but her parents are in fact defendants.
26

Smuhamm,

Detroit MI 13/04/2008 03:31:50
Yes, it is going to be time for HC to vacate and begin to continue to strengthen the Democratic party with and for Barack Obama. Currently,she is only showing some old true colors which are very fuzzy colors and not part of the New rainbow, the person that gets in will be the person of "Morale and integrity" She needs to begin to rally her supporters for Barack, if she is really a leader for women,working class and uneducated folks,(THESE LABLES ARE ALL DEGRADING AND I CRINGE EVERYTIME I HEAR THE MEDIA DESCRIBE THESE TERMS), why has her camp not come out against these lables? To finish my thought...If she truely have their ears,heart and souls they should be listening to her in saying she should be getting herself together to supporting Barack instead of McCain. She should step down after PA, PA is going to be closer than the Polls, and analyst think, a Suprize is coming. HC will not take it by a landslide or double digits, even with the remaining of the kitchen sink she has left to throw out to Barack. She has lost credibility with the public and her Media Friends due to saving and needing their jobs have helped her to loose it. Thank you Media!!! Now report the real deal about Obama and the great rallies, speeches he is doing for a change, the real Polls please
27

coumaris,

washington, dc 13/04/2008 03:32:54
How many regular people had the Emir of Dubai give them $15 million through a partnership in the Cayman Islands last year?

How many regular people were the spoiled rotten brat of a Navy Admiral, getting a brand new Corvette Sting-Ray for his 16th birthday?

That these two can criticize as elitist the son of a humble single mother is amazing ! !
28

JudyKR,

13/04/2008 03:35:06
Well, Rusty, at least we agree on McCain but I had it reversed on the other two. But thank you for responding.
29

,

13/04/2008 03:35:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

serena1313,

dallas 13/04/2008 03:40:05
*** #23 Dáithí

No it is not a black thing or a female thing. Obama has simply run a better campaign. He is a better candidate. Furthermore the people do not want another Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

HRC cannot win mathematically. Obama leads in popular votes, states, delegates and money. While Hillary has more super delegates her lead dwindled from 100 down to 30 or less delegates since January 2008. In contrast Obama gained 69 or more super delegates since January.

Clinton won only 14 states out of 40.

Primaries:
Obama won: 49.5%
Hillary won: 46.9%

Caucuses:
Obama won: 66.3%
Hillary won: 33.7%

pledged delegates:
Obama: 1415
Clinton: 1251

add Michigan & Florida:
Obama: 1481
Clinton: 1428

popular vote:
Obama leads with: 732,518 votes
add Florida: he still leads by 400,000
add Michigan: he still leads by 100,000

Super Delegates:
Clinton leads by 28
add Michigan and Florida she leads by 38

Total Delegates:
Obama: 1639
Clinton: 1503

Obama leads by 136 to 160 delegates depending on the source.

I spent the past two years researching all the candidates from both parties. I came to the conclusion Barack Obama should become the next president. The more I read the more convinced I became. Granted Obama is not perfect nor do I agree with all of his positions, but he is one of the finest candidates America has seen in decades.

Obama is a visionary and a leader. People of all stripes regardless of political affiliation, colour, race are attracted to Obama because he unites us in a common cause and encourages the electorate to engage in the political process.

His background as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, Constitutional law professor, a state senator and a US senator uniquely qualifies him to be the next president.

Obama did not come from wealth and privilege. Yet he chose public service over lucrative job offers.

His commitment to soc
31

serena1313,

dallas 13/04/2008 03:44:43
His commitment to social justice is not rhetoric; it is real. Learning from the ground up gives Obama a unique perspective to work from. Thus when he says something people tend to trust him because of his actions.

We, as world citizens, share a common interest: security. We, as world citizens, share a common interest: humanity.

The way to achieve individual, national and world security entails making every person secure.

Words alone mean nothing, promises mean nothing until those words and promises become actions. Obama not only acts on his convictions, he acts on his word. And that basically, in simplistic terms, describes Obama's moral philosophy. His record speaks for itself.

Decisions that reflect a deep sense of justice, compassion & empathy for humanity with the intelligence & reasoned logic tempered by patience are rare qualities found in politicians, however, they define Obama.
32

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 03:52:44
Obama is a flim-flam candidate who has rubbbed elbows with corrupt figures form Illinois: Tony Rezko and Levine. He is an elitist snob, who wants power no matter
what. I am concerned for this country of ours. This is
not a game of who wins; the issue is who is the best person to lead our country. Do you realize the qualifications of Hillary Clinton? Do you also realize
that her husband is a Rhodes scholar, and has his doctoral degree from the London School of Economics.
You, who want Obama for President are fools, just fools. Unfortunately, I have to live in the country with another 4 years of Republican government because
of you delusional people.
33

Yossi,

MD 13/04/2008 03:57:15
Do people take this guy seriously? Jimmy "one term' Carter is the furthest thing from an elder stateman in the Democratic Party. After the luny things he has said in the last few years he should be advised to smile and not speak on the record. Al Gore has never blamed the Clintons for the miscount in Florida and I dont see any indication that he would support Brack Obama as a superdelegate. It is quite likely that he will support Hillary. And for those who thing Baracks popular vote and delegate lead is insurmountable, you're not paying attention to Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Hillary's trump card Puerto Rico. Good Luck to Obama but I still have my money on the Clintons.
34

Frustated Democrat,

Michigan 13/04/2008 04:06:28
Time magazine did a lengthy article on Obama's Mother who developed the beginnings of a very successful Micro Economics program in Indonesia when she was there. She had a PhD in Anthropology and he was raised in some of the poorest parts of the country becasue of her work. Take the time to read it it was very enlightening and tells alot about how he was raised. Not like HRC.
35

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 04:07:23
Yes! I have much more faith in Al Gore than to do this
to Hillary Clinton. He doesn't have anything against her. Her husband chose him for Vice President. I used to admire Joan Baez, since she marched with Martin Luther
King; however, she has come out for Obama. Lving in
Woodside, CA, and I noticed this, not one black person
lives within miles of her home. I purposely live in a
community where I teach all racial and ethnic backgrounds. She's like those yuppie latte drinker fundraisers who listen to Barack discuss the gun loving,religion clingers, who are bitter and have atipathy toward the government. Bah! I'll never go to
another Joan Baez concert again!
36

drive_by poster,

Boulder, Colorado 13/04/2008 04:12:02
The Clintons are well-documented extreme liars and corrupt, morally depraved politicians of the highest order.

But if they were good enough to elected as co-presidents twice in the 90's, they are certainly good enough to be elected for eight more years now.
37

gallax,

Illininois 13/04/2008 04:13:21
Obama was raised in Hawaii for most of his life. His grandparents were well-to-do, and he lived in a better
economic situation than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, not far from where I grew up. Like Hillary, I spent time after school to tutor hispanic kids at the Spanish Center at Hull House. I also ran the music program there in the summers during my junior and senior years. Hillary Clinton is a compasionate woman. She has written books too. Shake it off before it's too late.
38

rajencajen,

13/04/2008 04:28:13
Grasping at straws comes to mine here; Obama supporters! Obama is a ego maniac and very arrogant. We in small town America have figured this out more than a month ago! His rock star status and fame just went to his head and let him show us the truth of who he really is!

The whole Rev Wright issue only confirmed it. What the Obama flock and the media don’t get or the DNC for that matter doesn’t get is, it is not about Rev. Wright or his views, as wrong as they may be. It is about how Obama handled that issue which was so reveling. It was the same with the Canadian issue. It wasn’t the issue as much as the lies and smooth smug answers and never taking responsibility that we find unfit in a Presidential candidate.

It is the same over and over again. Under the bus, Typical white person, didn’t know about statements, Ok knew about but was not in church, not there, Only 5, Ok dozens, Ok general trend, I would have left but retiring, No meeting took place, ok a meeting took place but not about NAFTA, Ok NAFTA was mentioned but no talk of campaign rhetoric, on and on it goes! Farrakhan, Avery, McCulkin, William Ayers, this list is getting rather long isn’t it? NOW WE HAVE BITTER SMALL TOWN LAZY WHITE FOLK WHO ARE GUN TOTEN RELIGION LOVING RACIST……..

Obama is un electable and Super Deligates will rethink their position after April 22.

This comentary is completely Ridiculous, unless your an Obama supporter as the writer of this article is......
39

Lucieann,

South Florida 13/04/2008 04:32:22
It is such a strange dynamic when somebody running for such high office forces the masses to come to terms with the true reality~! I know it is tough to deal with, but the truth us truth~~people are definitely angry,bitter and distrustful of their government...and no amount of "sweet-talk and fluff" or wearing of "rose-colored glases" is gonna change that. WTG Barack Obama~~~ "FIRED UP AND READY TO GO~!"
40

macinjax,

Jacksonville FL 13/04/2008 04:44:17
both the Obamanation and Hitlerry have about as much chance of becoming President as a snowstorm in Miami.
The boy blunder from gangster-ridden Chicago has spit in the faces of working class Americans in his latest "change" speech. The witch from New York can not even manage the mouth of her baggey eyed hubby. McCain may be old but honor still means a lot to most of us Yanks.
41

Bill M,

Austin, Texas 13/04/2008 04:45:39
The story says "Both Carter and Gore occupy the rarefied position of elder statesmen – in addition to their White House past..." It is with much pleasure that I inform you that Gore doesn't not have a White House past. He lived on the grounds of the Naval Observatory as Vice President. It's a pity for America that Carter had a brief White House past.
42

Hatshepsut1988,

13/04/2008 04:55:27
If Gore thinks clearly and has any courage whatsoever he would take this moment to come out wholehardedly in favor of Hillary Clinton. He must know, in his heart of hearts, particularly after the recent disaster (one of many) showing (to anyone who is not an obamabot of the most robotic kind) that Obama cannot win. Moreover, Hillary has been brilliant today, speaking about China and, as always, she's the one who first came out with the charge to Bush to boycott the opening of the Olympics. SHE is a true leader---and if BO is the nominee, we will have one hellish campaign followed by, with certainty, a win for McCain! Wake up America! Wake up Gore. (We know we can't expect Carter to do anything but agree with Obama because he, like Obama, is prepared to sell Israel down the drain, presumably to his friends in Iran!)
43

Dáithí,

San Jose 13/04/2008 04:56:51
#29 - Gallax

>"It is time for a qualified, female candidate
for President of the United States, to lead. You men are
the side of humanity to evoke war...

What sexist cr*p. Maggie Thatcher proved you wrong, learn to live with it.
44

Dáithí,

San Jose 13/04/2008 05:03:13
#30 - Serena

>"Obama has simply run a better campaign."

Serena, I wouldn't disagree with that. Obama has also benefited by maintaining a calm and professional demeanor in the face of Hillary's increasing exasperation when it started becoming clear that she was going to have a race on her hands instead of being given the nomination merely because she suffered silently thru hubby's inability to maintain control of his wee man.

Hillary, for forwarding herself as the 'inside the party' trollop, has made blunders that make Obama seem far more experienced and stately in comparison.

In fact, her incompetence has grown to the point where she will damage the Democratic party.
45

Dryden01,

Redmond, WA/USA 13/04/2008 05:04:50
The democrats need to re-evaluate support for ibnObama in that familiarity is breeding contempt for the man. It seems the more we hear him ad-lib without the benefit of prepared speeches, careful political handlers, and teleprompters, the more he establishes himself as an imbecile. There have been a half dozen or so instances now that clearly illustrate his stupidity. The politically correct try to dismiss them as cases of inexperience or naivete but sooner or later the reality that the man is an idiot has to come through. Let him come back in 8 years with a note from his "typical white grandmother" attesting that he has achieved a degree of knowledge and is less of a threat to the country than her imagined black muggers are to her.
46

Xavier,

Edinburg, TX 13/04/2008 05:05:54
If they endorse Obama, then I will vote for McCain. I don't trust Obama. He is arrogant and naive. The Republicans have so much dirt on Obama to use in the general election. I hope the superdelegates realize this before they make their decision. Obama is unelectable and I wish people would just see this. Hillary clearly has the solutions, the brains and the strength to beat McCain in November.
47

Dáithí,

San Jose 13/04/2008 05:08:10
#40 - Macinjax

>"McCain may be old but honor still means a lot to most of us Yanks."

Macinjax, I've been watching these threads and the main knock against McCain is that he is older.

That was used against Reagan in 1984 and it backfired badly. Do you think that age discrimination will work for the Democrats this time?
48

gallax,

13/04/2008 05:14:45
Daithi and Serena. . .in order. . .misogynist, and air head. You Daithi are! sexist. pathetic! And Serena, I
feel sorry for you, poor hypnotized Obama Zombi. Since
when does running a campaign of bundled corporate open
pockets proclaim the best presidential candidate. Grow
up! I went door-to-door campaigning for Eugene McCarthy
in 1968. When he lost, I worked for the Robert Kennedy
campaign. Don't you dare put this flim-flam Obama anywhere near these candidates! You are being duped.
49

C.U. Jimmy,

13/04/2008 05:18:49
Ho hum, yawn, fascinating to see the the SoS forum being abused by these semi-literate rants on US politicians and would-be presidents...zzzzz
50

gallax,

illinois 13/04/2008 05:22:22
And you. . . C.U. Jimmy have now made the first attempt at illiterate. :-)
51

Dáithí,

San Jose 13/04/2008 05:32:07
#48 - Gallax

>"You Daithi are! sexist."

And you are! an idiot. Learn to work a! exclamation mark! or! you will look! silly.

Sexism is to vote for a person because of their sex - as you are doing.

Not being sexist, I'm free to vote! for the candidate that most reflects my positions. You, being sexist! must vote! for someone because of their! sex.

If Hillary reflects your beliefs Gallax, then by all means support her, and I wish you good luck! If some other candidate best supports mine, don't condemn it because of sex, as I'm issue-oriented not sex oriented, and I wish that you could be the same - but I don't believe that you are.

Is that what this election is turning into by your request - don't vote issues, vote race and sex?

What a shame.
52

DaleW,

CA, USA 13/04/2008 05:35:09
The writer of this article knows little about politics. Clearly Obama is as prone to dumb gaffes as Clinton. And Gore and Carter have little to no power in the Democratic party. One is a complete loser who has found his niche in NGO manipulation, the other wass the worst president in the last 100 years (and that includes the present one, so it took some work to get the nod).
53

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 05:38:24
Sorry about the exclamation mark, albeit I'm a literature professor. :-)emphasis. My opinion of you sticks Daithi. By the way, I'm not voting for Clinton. However, there are enough misogynist men in this count who will keep her from winning. A woman is never the front runner. Remember, Obama is a man, I think. . . anyway.
54

nurseratchet,

Arizona 13/04/2008 05:39:28
How do you spell, "that's a load of horse pucky"? Hillary is NOT SLIPPING in the polls, she is actually gaining! And speaking of gaffes............What about Obama's attorney Andres Lopez on WAPA TV in Puerto Rico?
55

nurseratchet,

USA 13/04/2008 05:47:23
OBAMA WILL NOT BE PRESIDENT! WHY IS OBAMA’S ATTORNEY ANDRES LOPEZ BLASTING LARRY SINCLAIR ON PUERTO RICAN TELEVISION? WHY DOESN’T OBAMA JUST ANSWER THE SEX/DRUG ALLEGATIONS???
http://www.wapa.tv/superxclusivo/ NO DENIAL AT ALL!
56

Dáithí,

San Jose 13/04/2008 05:47:28
#53 - Gallax

>"However, there are enough misogynist men in this count who will keep her from winning."

So, if we disagree with her position on Iraq, the Economy, Abortion, Gun Control, the Death Penalty or any other of what we men call 'issues', you will proclaim that we are only voting against her because we are 'mysogynist'?

You're a sexist. You are not interested in issues, only sex. You vote for her because of her sex and you claim that men vote against her only because of her sex.

You may be the greatest single threat to democracy on the internet - besides anarchists, which stand for nothing at all.
57

None of the above,

Rural Ohio 13/04/2008 05:55:39
#29 gallax, Illinois wrote: "It's time for women to heal, nuture (sic) and guide our society."

Typical angry feminist rant. If you think Shrillary is a healer or nurturer you are indeed a daft person who should stay as far away from the voting booth as possible.

Hillary Clinton is the most vile, corrupt and evil woman in American politics. Since the early days of Arkansas, she and her husband have presided over corruption on a scale that makes typical "machine" politics look like a tea party. The list is endless and need not be repeated here.

That she is even considered a viable candidate is testimony to the gullibility and stupidity of vast numbers of our people. The level of her crimes (yes, crimes) is staggering, yet millions of misguided "progressives" think she's just dandy. Fools.

As a conservative, I don't support ANY of the three remaining candidates, but I will say that at least Obama seems a likable sort with comparatively little baggage. He's a Socialist through and through, but if it is the Dems' race to lose this fall I think I would rather it be Obama than the Witch of the White House.
58

,

13/04/2008 05:58:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

,

13/04/2008 05:59:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

Bobjohnson,

13/04/2008 05:59:48
"Hillary Clinton grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, not far from where I grew up. Like Hillary, I spent time after school to tutor hispanic kids at the Spanish Center at Hull House. I also ran the music program there in the summers during my junior and senior years. Hillary Clinton is a compasionate woman. She has written books too. Shake it off before it's too late"

She is also a complete liar. I refuse to support a woman who lies about coming under "sniper fire" when video evidence shows that there was a perfectly calm welcoming ceremony.
If anybody comes upon a life or death situation like she claims to have been in, that's sure not something that I would easily forget. She didn't "misspeak", she LIED for sympathy.
61

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 06:01:10
Ohio. . . I mean you. Talk to Daithi. . . maybe you can
get together and campaign for Barack in Pennsylvania.
62

57Nomad,

california 13/04/2008 06:03:18
#13 Kelvino

K said:

"If you can't take Obama's truth then revert back to your former prejudice and pretend that he's just another "upety" black man that you are so afraid of."

'If you can't take Obama's truth,' what truth are you talking about. Can you be a little more specific? And then, 'then revert back to your former prejudice.' Who is this 'your' you are talking about? I notice that you have posited a situation where one either accepts "Obama's truth" or admit to being a guy who goes around pretending that Obama is a frightening "upety black man."

As far as it goes, this 'upety black man' deal you introduced in your post, these sentiments are on your post, you wrote them, consequently every single word came from your mind and no one else's. The only person we know for sure who harbors those thoughts in his mind is you. So the question then arises how can someone who sets his racist musings online accuse others? The fact that you put these thoughts into the mind of others in your post doesn't absolve you of having them. To deflect the approbation due you, you invent fictitious others to express these thoughts for you. Who did you think you were going to fool?



63

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 06:05:08
Big BobJohnson . . . The point is that she was there. . .
little boy. Poor little boys like you don't deserve
any kind of leadership. Open a can and put your spoon in
and chomp down. You are b--- s---
64

Bobjohnson,

13/04/2008 06:08:15
The point is she was there? What does it matter if she was there or somewhere else when there was no threat whatsoever? Why lie about something like that?

Please give some sort of valid argument for her to falsify something like that instead of blindly supporting her.
65

serena1313,

dallas 13/04/2008 06:08:44
*** gallux

Do you think calling people names helps your credibility or telling me Iam being duped without qualifying your remarks?

Do you really need to be condescending?

Considering Obama has over 2 million donors contributing to his campaign I'd say perhaps you are mistaken! Yes he has a couple of bundlers working to collect donations. And yes employees from oil companies and other industries have contributed to his campaign, but the difference therein is they contribute as individuals. Furthermore Obama is beholding to his contributors which over 2 million outnumber two bundlers.

Iam not blind to what is going on.

In contrast HRC has taken in huge amounts of money from the health care, insurance industries, and the weapons-manufactoring-industry are her largest contributors.

Despite claims of having fired Mark Penn, top campaign advisor and pollster, he is still on board. He has to date accumulated $14 million dollars salary for working on her campaign.

Don't you think there is a conflict of interest that Penn met with the Colombians in his role as chief executive of Burson-Mastellar promoting the trade-deal while working on HRC campaign? He also represents Countrywide Financial and a subsidiary of Blackwater. What about Bill Clinton who fully supports the Colombian trade deal which Hillary asserts she is opposed to it?

I suggest you consider dropping the name-calling and unfounded attacks. There is no reason to be rude. If you disagree, fine, but back up your disagreements with facts.

66

57Nomad,

california 13/04/2008 06:15:33
#63 Gal

Gal said:

"The point is that she was there. . .
little boy. "

I must have missed the newsflash when you were appointed Commissar of Points. When did that happen and why did they pick you? Look, Milky, you are mistaken. Hillary's lie calls to mind the old military maxim; war hath no fury like a non-combatant. Faithful in a little, faithful in a lot. She flunked the first. She lied. And what did she lie about? She lied about a little thing. What would it have cost her to never have said it at all? Nothing, that's what. She lied and it's cost her. She's not going to get a free pass like Bubba did.
67

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 06:16:05
Bosnia won the war, and Hillary with her daughter were there to give support to our troops. The ceremony was cut short, and she with others were given bullet proof vests. The plane had to circle a long time so that precautions could be made before they landed. It was a
hazardous situation. As the First Lady she was there to
represent our government. I believe she was generalizing,and embellished the story. She's not a liar,
you know that. These judgments of her are based on lies. It's the hateful condemnation of her that is so
unfair. I don't believe this scrutiny and judgment of
her would exist is she weren't a woman. Her ability to
develop policies and her intellligence is remarkable.
And if you deny this, it is from a sexist position, I
don't care what you say.
68

JamesInDenver,

Colorado 13/04/2008 06:18:15
It's ironic, Bill Clinton loves to be called the first Black president. Yet his wife calls Obama arrogant, a code-word for uppity-black-man. This is a lynching folks, pure and simple.
69

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 06:24:35
Serena. . . facts are one thing. . . distortion and erroneous bull is another. Your information about Clinton's corporate support is dead wrong. Where do you
get this information? The international trade agreement
situation is a complex one. Did you ever hear the expression, "A little learning is a dangerous thing?"
With you it's, "Pretend I know something by making it appear that I do." You are mislead.
70

serena1313,

dallas 13/04/2008 06:25:32
Hillary has "embellished" her record time and again. She cherry-picks from her husband's record confusing being in proximity with work experience.

Considering her tall tales of Bosnia, denying to have supported NAFTA despite quotes for years saying otherwise, her claims to the FMLA proved to also be false makes one wonder what else is she not being truthful about!

After the past 7 years one would think Americans would be more savvy about electing the next president!

71

serena1313,

dallas 13/04/2008 06:29:56

HRC's voted for the AUMF, she also voted against 3 amendments that would have curbed Bush's rush to war. One of which was submitted by Dick Durbin (D-Il) that would have compelled Bush to demonstrate "imminent threat" prior to invading Iraq.

The second was Levin's amendment. Granted Levin's bill called for the UN's approval before force could be used, but it also reinforced America's right to defend itself even if the UN voted against it. Therein nothing in that bill was an impediment to the US in any way. Yet Hillary claimed it would have made the president "subordinate" to the UN.

Although the amendments were defeated Hillary had 3 chances to slow down Bush's rush to war, but chose not to!

PS: add Ireland and the health care story


72

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 06:35:24
Bill Clinton has a doctoral degree in Economics from
the London School of Economics. . . a Rhodes scholar.
Hillary was validictorian of her university graduating
class at Wellesley and has her law degree from Yale.
She has two terms as Senator from New York, the position
that Robert Kennedy held, and had 8 years of the Presidency as her education toward understanding what
the President experiences day to day, problem to problem.
If you don't see that she would be the best person to
solve this country's problems, problems far greater than we have ever faced in history, then you are a fool. I mean that sincerely. Good Night!!! And good luck!!!
73

,

13/04/2008 06:35:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

serena1313,

dallas 13/04/2008 06:36:48
There is a long list — including ties to Rezko.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/st.....55d748946e
http://www.margieburns.com/blo.....97614.html
http://www.margieburns.com/blo.....01879.html

Then there is the matter of Huge Kazakh’s donation of approximately $31 million dollars to Bill Clinton’s Library having to do with a mining deal, but it was scrubbed from MSNBC’s site:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22926743/

75

Bobjohnson,

13/04/2008 06:42:06
Have you seen none of the videos of the event? There is a precession of at the very LEAST 20 people. All of them are acting in quite the calm manner. None of them are visibly wearing bullet proof vests. There is no bulk whatsoever under their clothing indicating the presence of such a device.

Claiming she was under sniper fire indicates that she was being targeted and actually being fired upon which the video indicates otherwise. I could possibly see the existence of the possibility of a sniper attack, but with that type of logic, apparently I'm under a
"terrorist" attack every day of my life because I could get blown up at any point, or an "automobile attack" because I could be struck and killed by another driver.

This scrutiny is not because she is a woman whatsoever. As fellow members of the human race, I treat women with the same respect as I would any other person. Unfortunately for your generalizations, I am not the same as many of the other sexist men that exist and shame the image of men in general. Were she the correct person for the job as president, I would fully support her. No, I am not one of the many people who feel Obama is the perfect candidate. I have yet to see any candidate in ANY election so far that I feel would take our country in the perfect direction. I feel that the majority of politicians are lying scumbags who do not want to become elected to positions to make the country/world a better place but instead for personal gain for themselves and the lobbyist circle jerk.

I will fully admit that I feel Obama would be a better candidate over Clinton. Regardless, it's sort of a lose/lose-lose situation in my opinion. Do I want to get shot in the hand and lose my typing skills for a job, or shot in the foot and just lose my ability to walk? Either way I'm at a disadvantage. Admittedly, at this point though, I would still be willing to take Clinton over the abomination that is Bush.
76

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 06:49:00
Oh, Serena. . . one last thing! John Kerry, and dozens of other democrats voted for Bush to have power to go to
the U.N. to get behind the U.S. so that the U.N. would
pressure Husein and Iraq to open the country for inspection to see if there were WMDs. They were hoping that he would do this. Clinton and the other senators
didn't expect Bush to pre-emptively begin the invasion
of Iraq without the U.Ns backing. By the way, Obama
was in the Illinois State senate, and did not have to
face this decision, especially when the CIA had warned
of such weapons existing. Everyone later found that
this information was fabricated. Even Colon Powell
resigned in anger at this, since he presented these
so-called findings to the U.N. and everyone to convince
them to sign on to the invasion. Hillary Clinton had
witnessed, first hand, the destruction of the towers.
She had to deal with all the catostrophic results of
what happened to people in New York city. She was on
the frontline of all of this. Don't blame her for this
War in Iraq. Her ideas and policies would help this country find the best and the most clear direction.
You are mistaken about her. Your negative propaganda
is myth and untrue; she's a politician, but she has
dedicated her whole life to serving this country in
many ways. Being a woman, you should be proud of her.

intelligent
77

gallax,

Illinois 13/04/2008 06:51:50
BobJohnson. . . Go to sleep! You're full of babble.
Go Hillary! :-) Did you know that Obama's real! first
name is Barry. Barry Obama! What a ring! lol
78

DaleW,

CA, USA 13/04/2008 06:53:49
JamesInDenver wrote:
"It's ironic, Bill Clinton loves to be called the first Black president. Yet his wife calls Obama arrogant, a code-word for uppity-black-man. This is a lynching folks, pure and simple."

That is rich. To some, treating blacks as equals (they have the capacity for arrogance like everyone else, imagine that) is equal to `code-word' for whatever lameness they want to assert. Nice invocation of `lynching' too...get that double race card played. It is sure to do Obama all kinds of good. You seem more the bigot than those you so readily, and laughably, accuse.

79

SandersJ,

Missouri 13/04/2008 07:05:55
If Clinton can lie about being under sniper fire and McCain can't differentiate between Al Qaeda and Shiites then Obama can make a mistake regarding his chose of words. But he is correct Americans all across