Couple of points:
1) the .pdf of the flyer (link in story) doesn't show the side of the mailer with the actual text on it

2) Substance/plans -- go to the Clinton and Obama web sites, look under "Issues" His proposals are under "Seniors and Social Security" .. I can't figure out which of her categories these topics would fall under but it must be there somewhere (surely?) Compare for yourself

3)  This flyer went out to NH voters *one* day before the primary and, I'm sure, was very effective with the less educated and less wealthy voters who (coincidentally?) made a big part of her "surge".  These are voters more likely to be concerned about paying more money, less able to do a quick fact-check, and perhaps less likely to believe that someone like HRC would lie to them.  The flyer distorts Obama's proposal and plays unfairly on voters' fears.  If you take the principal statement:
"Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes to send more of Nevada families' hard-earned money to Washington" to make it accurate, you'd get:
"Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes to send more money FROM NEVADA FAMILIES WITH INCOMES ABOVE $102,000 A YEAR to Washington."  ....   And, well, that just wouldn't be as frightening, would it?

Karl Rove must be so proud of her. - I'm simply disgusted.

I disagree with many people when they say Mr. Obama is the candidate from the Democratic Party that can bring about "Change". My view is that he is still premature in some issues. He says he can bring people together but his record does not indicate that he has brought change as Mrs. Clinton has while first lady. I feel it's fair to say that Mrs. Clinton can bring about change in Washington, not just on her own but with the help of her husband. Our economy was in great standing when Mr. Clinton was in the white house. Why is it that no one complains about the price of gasoline (87cent gallon) when Mr. Clinton was around. I would personally love to pay 87 cents less for my gallon of gasoline. Our economy is hurt and the Clintons are the best ticket to solve the issue.

Read carefully!  Obama is obfuscating here not Hillary.  He called his tax increase a tax cut twice!

Hillary 08

Latest Head to Head polls:

Obama 41, McCain 39  (Dem +2)
Clinton 43, McCain 47  (Rep +4)

Obama 53, Huckabee 30  (Dem +23)
Clinton 48, Huckabee 39  (Dem +9)

Obama 56, Romney 26  (Dem +30)
Clinton 49, Romney 37  (Dem +12)

Obama 54, Giuliani 33  (Dem +21)
Clinton 50,  Giuliani 40  (Dem +10)


Does anybody see any patterns here?  Who among the Democrat candidates appears more electable?  Does anybody notice that Clinton never broke over the 50% level, whereas Obama did it on 3 out of the 4 head to head matchups?

Please Clinton supporters, don't kill the Democratic Party.  Pleeeaaaasssseee!!!

Why is it alright for Hilary to transition away from the issues posed to her during the debate and go on and on about the talking points she no doubt prepared before the debate.  If you watch the debate you will see that Obama answers all of his questions directly and honestly and Clinton simply relates the question to a question she wished they asked so she could rail against Obama's supposed 'lack' of experience.  Compare what Obama's done year-by-year with Hilary and you will see that Obama is more productive than her and could get more done in his first four years as President than she could.

Speaking of inaccurate flyers and dirty tricks, I haven't seen any reference to the racially sparked talking points or flyer against Hillary Clinton sent by Obama supporters that Tim Russert presented a copy of and questioned Obama about in the debate last night. Obama admitted it was the work of "over-zealous" campaign supporters, after denying for days that he had any knowledge of it.

I do appreciate that the candidates have called a truce on race and gender comments, as these kinds of attacks have already created an ugly divisiveness within the Democratic Party, as do the vicious attacks in political blogs.  We need civil discourse.

It's really extraordinary to read that some people will not vote if their candidate isn't the nominee. My vote in the SC Democratic Primary will go to Hillary Clinton, as I think she is the best prepared to be President.  If she is not the Democratic nominee, I will support whoever is, as we can't afford another 4-8 years of Republicans holding the White House.

You better check out Obama's plans for Social Security, he a republican running as democrat, Priviatization of Social Security, Joe Lieberman pal, you know how that goes. Joe was his mentor

What’s all the fuss about?  I thought the Dems fixed this problem long ago.  That Social Security Lock Box contains trillions of dollars and everyone should sleep better tonight.  Of course don’t open that lock box, we all know its empty.  So what new scheme will the politicians cook up next?

How about just giving us the money we’ve put in that lock box and we invest it and the government doesn’t have to worry about us anymore?

Obama was correcting the lies that Clinton had mailed to Nevadans about his plan so how is that "Obama hitting Clinton on social security."?????

MSNBC coverage is so slanted towards Clinton.

Clinton's TV ads in Nevada have her voice technically lowered so she doesn't sound so 'shrill', is there anything real about the Clintons?

Hillary cannot win the Independent votes in any state. Obama wins Democrats, Independents and Republicans. He is the only one that can win in a general election. If he is not the nominee we will lose the Presidency again this year. Please vote smart, it is so important that you do the math and realize Hillary cannot win if the only people voting for her are democrats. I do not dislike Hillary, but too many in this country dislike her intensely  and because of that, she cannot win. Please consider the outcome in November.

," Obama continued, repeating his mistake on labeling the tax increase a tax cut.


Common guys, take a look at what the so called journalist wrote himself. Doesn't this sound bias. I think some of the journalists out there have ganged up with the clintons to make sure they air or write as much negativity as they can to influence the american voters. what they don't know is that you can only get someone so stupid and dumb with all these.

Better start thinking of a better strategy because each time we read this, the more we are determined to vote the washington politician out of office.

"Sierra,SF

Please quit the cut and paste debate. I think Obama supporters think they can get everyone else to stop the actual discussion by force of word count. "


Thats because you are scared of the truth. Read the truth and be ashamed of yourself

Obama as always, no negativity from the clintons camp can change that.

Over the last few weeks I have gone from preferring Obama, but being OK with Clinton if she won, to being unable to vote for her.  I pretty much always vote Democrat but I have a real issue with the extremely dirty tricks that the Clintons are playing.  I get the feeling that Bill and Hillary will just lose it and throw a tantrum if they don't win this thing.  It seems to be more about them than about healing the country.  Democrats should understand that if it is Hillary vs. McCain we could be looking at more Republican rule.  She will not get the independents and the Democrats put off by her Karl Rove campaign tactics.

I know.

Every single post is 'Hillary is a liar' but they dont say how.

Obama never has to change positions on topics because he talks in such generalities he never sticks his neck out.

He never talks about EXACTLY what he would do, and hasnt been around long enough to make a mistake.

Its pretty tough to fight against a 'ghost' of a candidate like that on issues when his stance is so vague as to be above any critique.

But hey, as long as you obama folks BUY IT , what does it matter?



Heres some news you Obama folks should consider:

When Obama was elected to Senate, one of the first things he did was SEEK OUT Hillary Clinton and proceed to ask for advise on how to deal with Washington politics and being a senator.

Its right in the interview msnbc did today with hillary.

Sending out letters to voters saying Obama's social security plan will cost taxpayers a trillion dollars is just STUPID. This can easily be disputed, his plan is clearly outlined on his Web site at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

Hillary Clinton apparently hasn't heard of the Internet and thinks Americans will just believe whatever she says.  

Posted on MSNBC Web site, Authored by THE NEW YORK TIMES.

In charity and politics, Clinton donors overlap
Examination shows how fund-raising has fostered potential conflict.

By Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker and Mike McIntire

updated 1:57 a.m. CT, Thurs., Dec. 20, 2007

Early on, donations to the Clinton library caused perception problems. The day after he left office, Mr. Clinton was embroiled in a scandal over his 11th-hour pardon of the financier Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid tax evasion and other charges. A Congressional hearing later revealed that the Presidential pardon came after Mr. Rich’s former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $450,000 to Mr. Clinton’s library.

HRC.nothing more than a ""Washington self serving paper hanger""!!!

Anyone can see HRC is more corrupt than the spouse, voting conjecture, liar, two faced agenda swapping, self serving hidden agenda, a racists!

Proven experience?? A bystander who claims events of her a
claim, how far from the truth!

Open hollow promises, to invent claim and hanging onto the spouse coat tail ""Is not experience!!!!

Staged ringers planted to bolster her false being!

HRC, keeps throwing the gender card, HRC, got nailed for the race card.

HRC, a ""Hollow PIT""" How more Bluntly can it be said?????

Are The Clinton’s Crooks? Paul Harvey would call it “The rest of the story”

The following paragraphs are taken from an article on MSNBC site search.

Do any of you Clinton voters think the NEW YORK TIMES would lie about HILLARY?

Read the full following article for your own good and also mine. Copy the article and e-mail it to everyone on your list.

Instructions on how to find the full article is noted at the bottom.


By Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker and Mike McIntire
updated 1:57 a.m. CT, Thurs., Dec. 20, 2007

People don’t throw money Clinton’s way to be nice. They need something in return and the Clinton’s owe a lot to a lot of people.
   
A joint effort?  Slick answer Hillary.  
At a Democratic debate in September, 2007 when Mrs. Clinton was asked whether the Clinton Library foundation would disclose its donors, she indicated that the decision was not hers. “Well, you’ll have to ask them,” she replied, referring to the former president and his staff.

IS PAYOLA THE ANSWER TO A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON?
Mrs. Clinton played an important role in shaping both the foundation’s organization and the scope of its work, said Karen A. Tramontano, a senior adviser in the Clinton White House and the foundation’s first chief of staff.
Advisers also were acutely aware that the foundation’s operations — and any perception of a conflict — could harm Mrs. Clinton politically. “She and I would speak frequently,” Ms. Tramontano said. “She had a lot of ideas. All the papers that went to him went to her.”

Early on, donations to the Clinton library caused perception problems. The day after he left office, Mr. Clinton was embroiled in a scandal over his 11th-hour pardon of the financier Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid tax evasion and other charges. A Congressional hearing later revealed that the pardon came after Mr. Rich’s former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $450,000 to Mr. Clinton’s library.
_______________________________________________________________________________

The New York Times has compiled the first comprehensive list of 97 donors who gave or pledged a total of $69 million for the Clinton presidential library in the final years of the Clinton administration. The examination found that while some $1 million contributors were longtime Clinton friends, others were seeking policy changes from the administration. Two pledged $1 million each while they or their companies were under investigation by the Justice Department.
________________________________________________________________________________
Family donors
Toward the end of the Clinton administration, Dr. Richard Machado Gonzalez and his lawyer, Miguel D. Lausell, both major Democratic donors in the 1996 presidential election, were pushing the president to increase Medicare reimbursements to hospitals in Puerto Rico, like the one owned by Dr. Machado.

Mr. Lausell pledged $1 million to the library in 1999, eight months before Mr. Clinton proposed increasing Medicare payments to Puerto Rico for the second time in his administration.                 Dr. Machado gave the library foundation $100,000 about six months later.
In the interim, the president appointed Mr. Lausell to the board of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which helps American companies with foreign projects.

Both men are supporters of Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Lausell serves as a senior adviser on Latino affairs. Dr. Machado did not return calls seeking comment, and efforts to reach Mr. Lausell through the campaign were not successful.

_______________________________________________________________________________

A fledgling telecommunications company, NextWave Wireless, was battling the Federal Communications Commission when library fund-raisers tapped its chief executive and a major investor. NextWave had promised to pay $4.74 billion for cellphone licenses, but when it declared bankruptcy before completing its payments, the F.C.C. threatened to put the licenses up for public auction, which would have ruined NextWave.
Over three consecutive days in December 1999, with a decision imminent, the Clinton library logged a $100,000 pledge from NextWave’s chief executive, Allen Salmasi, and a $100,000 contribution plus a $1 million pledge from Bay Harbour Management, a major investor in NextWave.
The agency ultimately repossessed NextWave’s licenses, prompting a court battle that the company won. Bay Harbour’s co-owner, Douglas Teitelbaum, who declined to comment, never fulfilled his promise to contribute the additional $1 million. Mr. Salmasi did not respond to an e-mail message or to calls to a company spokesman.
Mr. Clinton also found support for his library among some people who figured in the Democratic fund-raising controversies dating to the 1996 elections that involved White House sleepovers, coffees for big donors and money funneled from the Chinese government.
Among them was Farhad Azima, an Iranian-born aviation executive whose involvement in the Iran-contra scandal — one of his companies flew military equipment to Iran in the 1980s — prompted the Democratic National Committee to return a $143,000 donation in 1997. The party later accepted the money. Mr. Azima pledged $1 million to the library.
Another $1 million pledge came from Eric and Patricia Hotung. Mr. Hotung is a Hong Kong businessman who in 1997 was granted a meeting with Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser after Mr. Hotung’s wife, Patricia, an American, offered $100,000 to the Democrats.
Nine of the original library donors received presidential appointments to organizations like the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities and the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. In his final days in office, Mr. Clinton appointed two of the donors, the businessmen Mark S. Weiner and Vinod Gupta, to the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

 _____________________________________________________________________________  

On October 6, 1999, the charitable arm of the Anheuser-Busch Companies gave $200,000, the first of five payments over five years totaling $1 million, according to records filed by the company’s foundation. Less than a month earlier, the company, the country’s leading beer maker, had scored a major victory when the Clinton administration’s Federal Trade Commission dropped a bid to regulate beer, wine and liquor advertising.
                                                                                             
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Bernard L. Schwartz, another major Democratic contributor who was then chief executive of Loral Space and Communications, gave $250,000 and pledged $750,000 more in 2000. At the time, investigators were trying to determine if Loral had improperly provided satellite technology to China. Under the Bush administration, Loral agreed to pay a civil fine of $14 million to settle the case. Mr. Schwartz, is now also a Hillary raiser.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Long enough for now?
Read the full article by doing an MSNBC SITE SEARCH for  “CLINTON LIBRARY”
Then find the article>>>  Clinton donors overlap (12/20/07) 3 Pages. It’s worth it

Don’t forget to copy and e-mail the article to everyone on your address list

WHOEVER ELECTED THESE TWO IDIOTS SENATORS, MUCH LESS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.  I KNOW THE JEWS HELPED CLINTON IN NEW YORK WHICH SHE IS NOT EVEN FROM, AND I GUESS THE LESSIES AND FEMENISTS. BARRACK FOOLED THE BLACKS IN CHI TOWN.  CLINTON ALWAYS REFERS TO JEWS AS MF BAS--RDS, WAY TO GO JEWS, AND FOR THE LESSIES SHE ALREADY HAS HUMMA ABEDIN, HER ALLEDGLY AIDE LOVER, JUST LIKE BILLY BOY.

To KJMatthews,

Here are some substantial points my friend:

1. Character, and/or the lack thereof, truly matters in politics, especially Presidential Politics.

2. Truth-telling and integrity, which we have not gotten from the White House on any type of consistent basis for the last 15 years of Bill, Hillary, and GW, matters dearly to most voters; and

3. Rejecting the presumption that you have to get your own attacks out when attacked to get elected President, which the Clintons and many DEMS still believe in given the SwiftBoating, etc. is as valuable to getting this country back on track as the specifics of any tax cut or healthcare proposal.

This is Obama's plan; and the genius of it is that only he, is properly positioned with the credibility to execute this type of plan to rid the national debate of divisive politics. And only the Clintons stand in his way and in our way. Why? Because the candidate least credible is the one most divisive figure in American politics after George Bush, and that is Hillary Clinton.

So come and think out of the box with Obama for a minute and reject the notion that the only substantial point is a policy one. Bill Clinton was a master policy wonk and so is his wife and so, as the lawyers that they are, they seek to frame the debate in terms of who has the bigger brief. Admittedly, Obama is a Harvard lawyer too, but more like the older Bobby Kennedy who sought to show young Americans how they could take back the power of their government and end the Vietnam War by getting involved in government. (Hey HRC made that comparison valid when she set herself up as LBJ, the doer, then Obama must be the young opponent seeking LBJ's position, RFK.)

So Bill and Hillary now tell us that being inspirational and uplifting are incompatible with being a good manager. Again she is talking up her own book: and we should all reject that false choice. She is not only uninspiring; she inspires negativity among half the population of the United States. Obama and I did not create that situation. It is a fact that makes it clear to me she does not have a chance of winning the White House.

That was the case before NH and before Iowa and she has done nothing to reverse it. In fact, now she has some Black people like me feeling bad also and even negative toward when everyone in my family (New Yorkers) have voted for her and her husband 8 or 9 times.....I know it's only been four times but it seems like more.

That's probably because of all the love they got from Black people in '98 when most of America including many, many Democrats was embarrassed by them at best. Not us, we took them into our homes and black churches and declared them worthy of redemption and forgiveness. We voted countless times for them in the public opinion polls that kept the enemies on the right from their doorstep at a time when even many Progressive DEM women despised Hillary for what they viewed as cheap, manipulative public visits to spiritual marriage counselors and various black churches (I guess the white churches wouldn't have them). But Black people were the one solid DEM voting bloc they had in good times and bad. We helped resurrect them. It reminds me of the movie, "It's A Wonderful Life" and that Bill is like the ex-con pharmacist and Hillary is the spinster-version of Donna Reed without the support of countless people in 1998-1999, but most importantly Black Americans. And here we are after they move to NYC, (why not Utah?) and get back in the house are they treating the first Democratic candidate to be successfully campaigning on personality and who happens to be African-American to their full bag of political tricks.

It got so bad that my 75-year old dad, who still plans to vote for his Junior Senator in NY DEM primary coming up, called me in LA after seeing Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" rant and asked me, "What makes them think that going after Obama like that was okay with us?" I didn't have the heart to tell him that they didn't give a flying hoot what he or any other Black person thought about it as long as it started to get the majority to thinking that Obama was no better than them.

Brian Williams and Tim Russert chimed in on behalf of the Clintons in that SHAM debate to verify for America that Obama was just as guilty. But ask yourself these two questions about the debate:

1. When Brian Williams acknowledged to Obama that they receive a constant stream of information via fax and email defaming Obama and asked how he handled it, why didn't Williams tell us the source of those attacks? I am sure they knew and could have found out even if there were attempts to conceal the identities. As an Obama supporter, I wonder why, even, not ask that question of Hillary since we know two of her campaign officials resigned after admitting to doing exactly that. If that would have been too hard of question or too unfair to Hillary, then why not this: if MSNBC really wanted to end the racial dialogue and divisive politics; then why didn't Brian Williams just announce that those missives were unwanted and advise that they not be sent under threat of prosecution for clogging up their machines. I didn't know until this debate how much they want to keep the race thing going and have agreed to keep doing the Clinton's bidding in this regard. If you don't agree then how do you explain this:

2. When Tim Russert in his prosecutorial tone held up a 4-page fax to Obama that he received directing him where to find HRC's LBJ/MLK comments and where to find various negative comments in response to it like Mr. Clyburn's of S.C. He sure had no problem identifying the source of the email this time. And he had the nerve to assign it equal weight as the items Brian Williams cited they receive daily about Obama in terms of volume (ridiculous) or tone even though he did not reference any direction mention of Ms. Clinton and acknowledged that the entire fax just pointed them in the direction of the Clinton attacks in the event they somehow were missing them. As Obama has often stated, neither he nor his campaign ever made a comment about Hillary's MLK remarks. Still they got the acquiesence out of Obama because he can't afford to allow them to keep bringing it up. Williams and Russert tag-teamed to do a real job on Obama for HRC; and don't try convincing me it was not well-planned and intentional. Aren't you curious who is sending this constant stream of material that Brian Williams says their getting? And if it's not important to know who is sending those; then is it so important to know that the Obama Campaign sent ONE fax, that's all, just pointing to the fire?

I tell you, the country and the world are watching this and becoming numbed at the site of Bill and Hillary putting words in Obama's mouth.

The reality is that the true positions of Hilary and Obama are not all that different except that the record shows that Hilary is more conservative and Obama is more progressive. Or put another way the most in the media agree with, Obama is more liberal than Hilary.

The debate proved, again as the talking heads agreed, that their positions are similar as are their proposed solutions. So the deciding factors appropriately become the "softer" more nuanced issues of personality, character, and electability.

In the debate they agreed on most policies just as Obama pointed out today that she has even agreed with his Social Security proposal in this campaign. But she sends out a campaign mailer which proposes to speak for him. This is an attack tactic known as trying to "define" your opponent. The Clintons decided in December that it would be necessary to raise Obama's negatives if they were to have any chance to win, especially given the fact that Hilary has the highest negatives of any candidate, Republican or Democratic, and is the only candidate for President whose negative rating from Americans is higher than her positives. Of all candidates, Obama's surplus of likeability less people who feel negatively toward him is the absolute highest.

But his negatives are higher now since the Clintons started talking about him. You may call it "fair comparative politics", but it is negative campaigning and very cynical and since I don't need to play nice so the media won't keep accusing me of injecting race when I didn't, I don't have to pretend as if both Hilary and Obama are equally guilty of this. But Bill Clinton is not regarded as the best politician in America for nothing....and they have definitely succeeded in stopping the Obama Party that was going on by "defining" Obama for you.

He got your permission to do when he first railed that this "whole" thing was a fairy tale because of the free ride the media was giving Obama. That was his announcement that they felt justified in doing the work the media refused to do. And he is still regarded as Presidential by many, especially in the media who defer to him. And the coverage of Obama has definitely changed since NH. They are now equally blamed for injecting race when today is actually the first time I have ever heard of him mentioning Hilary so much at his events; but as always it was just in defense of some attack they made against him which is also a tactic: to keep him on defense talking about the attack keeps the attack line alives and is time he is not talking about what our common goals and aspirations are.

So don't shy away from comparing personalities because at the end of the day, that is what people end up voting for. Obama does have this in common with Bush, people from both parties liked them personally when they campaigned for President. Bush admitted the alcholism, etc and there were rumours of cocaine use that he was too scared to admit. But he was likeable. And the same thing with Reagan. I am older and I remember the way DEMS attacked Reagan as a right-wing nut and as someone with no plans and no policies other than lower taxes....no solutions for anything in that campaign other than to increase defense spending and cut taxes which didn't add up then and doesn't add up now. GW also ran on a do-nothing, keep the ship going, stay away from nation-building, and don't cheat on my wife platform. We had no idea what GW really believed in or what the Cheney/Bush agenda was....I don't even think GW knew. They were content to just coast through the entire campaign, promising nothing and offering as little specifics and possible except to pledge that they had more character than the Clintons.

So why are we forcing someone who is being universally lauded for bringing out new DEM voters and attracting Independents and disillusioned Repubicans to get more specific on policy details that will only provide fodder for Republicans to divert discussion from the last 8 years to the current proposals.

This is the genius of Obama and this is what the ENTIRE DEM CAMPAIGN should be about and it is what is was about, UNTIL THE VOTING STARTED AND SOMEONE DIDN'T WIN AS EXPECTED AND THEY TOLD US THAT IT WAS BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT OBAMA AND WHAT HIS PLAN IS SO THEY COULD FIND SOMETHING TO ATTACK TO DIVERT US FROM THE PARTY WE HAD IN IOWA.

GW and more so Reagan had the right formula. So did Obama. The Clintons are doing the opposition's work for them in so many ways. When she implied that she was like LBJ, the president that it took to get things done, how prophetic. His stubborness, narcissism and insecurity in that 1968 campaign, particularly toward Bobby Kennedy whom LBJ felt was too new to elected politics and didn't deserve such public adulation from the voters, led to Nixon's election.

So I would ask all of us this question: When we got the Bush record to run against, why give them specific proposals to pick apart and use against any of us? If one of us gets in office, there is not going to be much of a difference in policy. Hillary or Obama would be picking from many of the same DEM-leaning professionals to staff their teams. Many of their senior White House Advisors are already on their campaign staffs. Now who has had the best run campaign, just in terms of management, organization and efficiency? Can you tell the difference who is the better manager.

It the only problem I have with Edwards, which became his biggest problem. He has been running longer than Obama or Hillary and he didn't raise the money. He's got lots of wealthy lawyer buddies like Obama and Clinton and he's been at it for almost 4 years solid; and the fact he couldn't raise the money to stay competitive given more time, reflected poor management to me. You definitely can't distinguish between Obama's and Clinton's management capabilities in that regard.

In fact, some argue that Obama's fundraising operation, put into place after Clinton's and lacking the benefits of the donor base of a former President has far outplanned and out-executed the Clinton campaign as evidenced by their early fundraising lead in being first to $25 MIO, $50 MIO and $80 MIO, having much more available for the primaries, and having a much broader capital base of smaller donors to tap later positioning them for a late funding advantage if primary season drags on.

Do you remember all that talk of Obama's superior fundraising operation which broke the Dean records from the last cycle? Shouldn't he get credit for being a better manager, or planner, or inspirational speaker, or preacher, or showman, or frontman, or however one might seek to minimize and diminish his accomplishments....than Hillary just for coming from the Illinois Senate with no such experience and putting together an organization from nothing that has raised more money than the former President and his Foundation for his wife?

Perhaps this is the hidden story driving the Clinton's sense of urgency to aggressively "define" Obama right through Feb 5th. They may know that Obama will be able to easily re-load, especially if he still leads the elected delegate count on Feb 6th.
We'll see.

If it's one thing I have learned through the yrs about political campaigns is that they have become a "what we have been rather then a what we are and what we need to do".  All of the candidates dems & reps should take a day or two off from their campaigns, stop their bickering and rethink their strategies. It's disgusting how they run their campaigns. Their demeanor resembles children at play. No wonder the country is in such disarray.

My family and friends have been following the 2008 Presidential election and I feel overwhelming compelled to comment and express our sadness, disgust and anger after witnessing the continued unfair disturbing name calling treatment that Senator Clinton continually receives from MSNBC. I was an avid viewer until the daily gender discrimination and horrible names Senator Clinton is called by Chris Matthews has forced my family and friends to change the channel for good. The media has dropped the ball. We the viewers and most importantly the voters looked to news station like MSNBC for unbiased FACTS about ALL the presidential candidates to assist voters on making a wise and educated decision on who will run our country. Unfortunately the media especially MSNBC and Chris Matthews has shown your just another tabloid TV backing Senator Obama.  It’s a disservice to our great country that you attack and discriminate a white female Senator and Former First lady who has done a great deal of good in 35 years of political service to our country that is dismissed and ignored for fear of upsetting a black candidate and his racial supporters. You should be ATLEAST reporting the differences and giving obama the same microscopic personal attacks that you continue to do to a white female United States Senator. You have no credibility in reporting the news. If we wanted this type of so-called news, we can buy the National Enquire. It appears MSNBC must be owned and or operated by black racists and that’s sad. If I may, I'd suggest you review your programming and give thought to the actions of your station personalities.

Thank you for your time.
Jefferson Family

Hillary stay strong!  These idiots don't know what they are talking about.  

It looks like the Obama supporters are desperate. They use sock puppets. Anyway the HuffingtonPost is a pro-Obama rag not worthy of mention.

Now to the good stuff. My 18 year old son cast his first vote ever and he voted for ... Hillary! I asked the poll-worker how the voting was going and she stated that Hillary is "running away with the election" in her precinct. This is important because on February 5 about 22 states are holding elections and no campaign (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) can afford to campaign and run ads in ALL the states so Florida, where none of the candidates have ran ads or campaigned in, will be the bellwether.  I read how the Obama campaign is spinning that "Florida doesn't count."  Sorry Obama but Florida does count. It'll tell us you can't win in Florida.

It looks like the Obama supporters are desperate. They use sock puppets. Anyway the HuffingtonPost is a pro-Obama rag not worthy of mention.

Now to the good stuff. My 18 year old son cast his first vote ever and he voted for ... Hillary! I asked the poll-worker how the voting was going and she stated that Hillary is "running away with the election" in her precinct. This is important because on February 5 about 22 states are holding elections and no campaign (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) can afford to campaign and run ads in ALL the states so Florida, where none of the candidates have ran ads or campaigned in, will be the bellwether.  I read how the Obama campaign is spinning that "Florida doesn't count."  Sorry Obama but Florida does count. It'll tell us you can't win in Florida.

Maybe I am missing something. If I am incorrect I would appreciate someone clarifying Obamas position on fixing Social Security to me. He wants to raise the taxes on the top 3% of wage earners in this country.
Is anyone really thinking that is a BAD thing. I don't earn anywhere near that and I am able to mantain what I consider to be a comfortable earning. Yes I am not able to save money like I would like but I have a place to lay my head. I have heat, hot water and cable television.
If the definition of middle class is that you can travel to other continents for a two week vacation then when did the bus leave without me. The average middle class person doesn't take 2 week trips with their families to the South Side of France.
Now I am an Obama supporter and I am not trying to bully anyone into voting for Obama. I am just taking a realistic stand and paying close attention to policies.

If you want the same old politics of hate and divisiveness you need only nominate Hillary Clinton. It'll be 4 to 8 more years of bitter arguing, dirty tactics, personal attacks and no progress in the congress. The Republicans are gearing up for the Clintons with glee. Hillary is the only thing that can give the Republicans a chance of winning in November as they will turn out in droves to vote against her. And her continued mean-spirited primary campaigns only serve to promote the same thing in the general election. Somebody should get smart. Vote for Obama or Edwards. But don;t subject all of us to the same dreary discourse we've had these many years.

I smell a slaughter coming on in November...as soon as the dims start with their "I need my candidate to feel my pain" crap its all over...why do the touchy feely crowd always seem to gravitate to the one with the least experience and most open pages?

Obama's plan on Social Security is a very good one while HRC is just a flat out liar who lies about taxes in the same fashion as the Republicans, a tax increase hurts the middle class even if its on people who only make over 200k what a distortion of the truth. I suppose all the trade agreements that Bill Clinton signed such as NAFTA were good for the middle class too. Just look at the auto industry or ask anyone who used to work for GM or Delphi.

i think we should be more focus on God who is the giver of 'a true leader' rather than focusing on aspirants' debate.
these aspirants knew our needs but we cannot tell the one that can fulfil them except God.
either of them, i pray God to give us a leader that has a feeling, a passion, a vission, a character and a burden.
long life America

Obama in the white house would be another Bush in the white house.He is all talk a big blowhard.he said if he became presideny he would surround himself with people that know how to run this country.In other words he would just have people to tell him what to do.We already have a president that does that and he just says what he is told to say.One dummy in the white house is enough.Obama is all talk and no substance.

Obama is all talk and also a liar.He did a lot of lying in the book he wrote the Audocity of hope.He never lived in a tennament in New York.His time in New York was at the Columbia Univercity.This comes from some one who knows.

Obviously you guys are only paying attention to what you want to and not the facts. If any of you are in business out there, who would you want to run your company - someone with experience or someone that makes you feel good. Running a social thing on the South side of Chicago doesn't count, you guys. (Ever run a non-profit?)

You Hillary-bashers don't even know why you don't like her and therefore, you are a product of the media and Republicans over the years. Why don't you clear you mind and really lay down the issues side by side - more than just emotion - and see what is important.

I don't care if you vote for her, him or anyone for that matter, but PLEASE, get a grip and stop all of this bashing on her and others. If Obama is truly for change and bringing people together - you

A vote for Obama is a vote for the republicans who is Chosen to run against him.The republicans are .

The Clintons are liars.  They will do anything to return to the Whitehouse.  Wake up people.  Twenty years of 2 family politics was not enough? Give me a break.  Its easy to pick on Obama because he is honest and always takes the high road and leaves the usual mudslinging to Clinton.  GO BARACK!

I started with Hillary, but I am saddened by her behavior and her throw a rock and hide her hand routines.  It's not about bashing, it's a matter of difference of opinions.
I see a problem here.  People are not saying this time, where is the beef with Obama?  He did great in the debate and he cautiously thought about his answers before answering.  Seems now people are on to something else.  Since he didn't bash Hillary, he is said not to have done well.  That's a lie from the pit of hell.  
No one seems to talk about her with "35 years of experience" and voting for things that have really harmed us, while Obama the supposed rookie, made the better choices in voting against these bills.  Then she votes for things and says I am glad it didn't get passed or make excuses why she voted like she did.  "Are you kidding me?"  Remember Bill said that!    
Hillary ripped Bush from one end to the other.  Guess what America?  Many Americans may not like Bush, but if we want to work with republicans, independents, and those who have just lost faith in a system, you can't win and you definitely can't get anything done in Washington with her attitude.  She may be your candidate as she was mine, but many love her, but there are many more people on both aisles that despise her.  How will anything get done?  We don't need her divide to conquer attitude; it's poison.
Hillary raised her voice and that's the command voice, yeah right!  She probably answered well, but if you listen to the questions and her answers, she didn't answer many of the questions, so where is her beef or the substance?
That's why I switched my vote!    

csh, were you honestly watching the same debate I was!? At first they were all cold and reserved. By the end, it was only Mrs. Clinton who was left robotic, repeating a number of memorized campaign slogans. The other two had found their passion.

These days it is clear that what's important is not merely your policies (on which Obama still beats Clinton) but how you govern. When people demand change in this country, it's not a change of policies, or else we'd all vote for Gravel or Paul. Many of those remain consistent throughout the Dem Party. No, rather they demand change in a mentality. A mentality that Obama embodies the transcendence of.

People today don't need someone who will punish their enemies when they get into office. Aren't we supposed to be the PROGRESSIVE party!?

What people need, more than anything, in politics and without, is to be inspired. They need to believe in the potential of their government, and deeper of the better parts of our nature again. They need to know that the answer is unity, not partisanship, hope, not what can one person do, the voice of our generation, not, not, not someone closeminded.

Kjmatthews from Florida. You choose to read what you want. It will not distort the facts here. On the Ecomomy, on Social security and tax refrom as well as Immegration, Obama is better. On family and the heath care system, Clinton is better. This has nothing to do with charisma. when Obama's opponent distort his position on issues and send out false fliers, When they keep going to the media to reexplain their words,  that to me means they are the ones with most of the spitfulness.

Remember David Geffens comment (a man who supported the Clintons and slept in the Whitehouse) "all polititions lie however the Clintons do it with such ease that it is scarey"

Always remember negative mindset people like Hillary Clinton will always lose because it is not how we born to demoralize other being. We are not created to annihilating other innocent person with dirty-false statements? Where is America? Where is the integrity that bound us as a nation. I see Mrs. Clinton and her adviser went beyound the limit. Well, the good book always says whatever you do you will reap what you sowed.I beleived strongly that favor of God will always upon those who humble themselves during the election. Don't be surprise she reapping her own seed!

Every time someone tries to post substantive information about any candidate, the post ends up too long and you get this: "Please quit the cut and paste debate."

Look, Obama's plans are spelled out in detail on his website. If you're undecided, why don't you go directly to the sources, e.g. Clinton's and Obama's (and Edwards' if you like) respective websites. Yeah it's boring, but it's not our job to spoonfeed you. This is the internet, not a canvassing drive. But look, if there's a specific issue that concerns you, ask about it. Don't just ask "whats his plan guys" and expect us to just type you up a massive post detailing all of Obama's highly detailed plans.

As far as Obama's plan for unity, it's mostly vested in his own abilities, as proven by his legislative successes in Illinois, to bring opposing sides together to get the issues solved instead of bickering.

The only way Clinton is elected if she wins the nomination is if the GOP continues to be unable to agree on a candidate.

Why would the democratic destablishment back a candidate that is disliked by 60% of America? This election could not be set up better for the democrats to get their nominee elected (coming off a Republican president with a 25% approval rating, no real Republican candidate, etc), yet the Dems are trying to get the ONLY person who could possible alienate enough voters to lose as the nominee? It makes no sense.

Obama or Edwards would walk to the White House if the party supported them as they have Clinton, but Clinton will get absolutely skewered, and rightfully so, if she wins the nomination. People don't like or trust her, plain and simple. There is no way any Republican voted for her, no matter what they think of their own candidate. But I do think many would vote for Obama.

Americans are begging to have a candidate they can believe in, trust, and get excited about. Hillary Clinton is the opposite of that.

Wake up democrats, you are losing your chance to have a democratic president. Stop the Hillary support, she's the wrong candidate.

I'm an African American woman who supports Clinton and although I like Obama I just don't feel that he has enough experience to run the country.  I'd love for him to be our Vice President under Hillary.  The Clinton's have always been good to African Americans and now all of a sudden because an African American is running - they're considered racist?  People please.  If we don't get ourselves together the Republicans will be right back in the White House.  Talking bad about my candidate will not bring me to your candidate. No matter who wins the Democratic nomination - I just pray that we win back the White House.

If you Clinton supporters had million dollar businesses, and needed a CEO, would you hire anyone that resembled the candidates we must choose from to be our President?  GOP or DEM, we are once again forced to elect the lesser of the two evils.  
  Clinton has no real experience save the short stint she has had as Junior Senator from NY.  Her White House experience is no more than the Pastry Chef, unless you consider "looting" a job.
  Obama knows less about running this country than I do.  His foreign politics are as naive as I have ever seen.  Once again; No experience.
  Edwards has proven that he can make money for himself, but what about us.  Name something he has done to better the working class he has sworn to FIGHT for.  $400 hair cuts and manicures do not impress me.  Sounds more like Boy George than a Commander-in Chief.
  Guilani can't manage his personal life, so I surely don't want him in mine.  
  Romney has financial experience but I have trouble trusting him.  His religion in Pro-Life and Anti-Gay Marriage; was he?  NO.
  Huckabee's Good Ole Boy image is not consistent with what a President should be. "Terrorists are attacking Mr. President.  What shall we do?"  "Let's invite them over for a prayer meeting."
  Mc Cain doesn't know himself if he is liberal or conservative.  He gets those two mixed up.  Maybe in younger years... nah he was clueless then too.
  Ron Paul? PLEASE!!!

Tell me.  who can you trust.

let's face it. each campaign is putting it's own spin on the others plans - that's american politics! in the end endorsements don't mean that much since people usually make up their own minds. At the AARP website they put the candidates position aside each other w/o biase or endorsement for all to read on SS or any other issue. The fact that obama is leaning toward older americans continuing to work raises questions for me about whether the retirement age will be raised while Hillary is talking about fiscal responsibility. to those who call hillary a liar it seems to show who will be voting for obama. those who are for hillary do seem to be more civilized in their criticizm of obama. blogs are blogs people will vote not based on someone airing their "views" on blogs; hopefully not basing their votes on media reports and moreover on polls. if the truth be said all the campaigns are attacking each other so why all the blog attacks on just hillary? love her or hate her; call her a liar; distort the facts; people who do vote and do research on the candidate's positions will be the people who nominate the next president.

For those of you who believe the "experience" argument by the Clinton campaign, this is my response:

Obama's got 3 years in the US senate, 8 years in the state senate, and more than a decade of community organization experience. Compare that to Hillary who has 7 years of US senate experience and 25 years riding Bill Clinton's coattails.

Even still, "experience" hasn't shown itself to be quite what is needed. What about Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer, et al? Decades of experience in the political, public, and private sectors, and not a damn one competent enough to do the job.

KimB, get a life on this thing.  It's time to get someone that is a uniter, not a divider or someone causing trouble before they get to the White House.  Sadly enough, if Hillary wins the nomination, I can guarantee you a republican.  
Don't give us this sad story.  Be apart of the solution, not the problem.  It's not about race or gender, (efforts of the Clintons are smoke and screen), it's about common sense for America.  This lady trashes Bush, guess what Bush won 2 terms, which means there are many people who still like him, but disagree with his politics.  You can't win the WH with the walking, talking bashing machine, and you can't win republicans and independents with that throw common sense folks in from of the train, that's what Hillary provides.  Get that crap outta here.  

FED UP,  I was going to write some really nasty things to you in response to your post to me. But you know what? You're not worth it.  Go Hillary!!!!

Oh, and by the way if Florida hasn't got the Gore/Bush vote so wrong we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
KimB

We were able to see alot of the candidates in NH over the past year, on both sides. I voted for Bill Clinton twice and was leaning towards voting for Senator Clinton until late Fall, when Obama started getting traction, and the smear campaign started. [I have no axe to grind - there were a number of lies circulated through the state directly by her campaign that were straight out of the Karl Rove textbook.)

I then met Obama twice and found him compelling, particularly his ability to listen, recruit top talent into government, and address the huge issues we face internationally.

Clinton is competent on the issues and has a high level of intellect. I used to think she was not divisive but rather the GOP attacked and put her in that spot. I now no longer believe that. Both Clintons seem to need anger to feed off of - without it Senator Clinton is a weak campaigner. (Perhaps a good policy wonk, but there are many of those in our country.)

Obama is not perfect. But, he has real potential to be a unifying force not seen in some time. Independents and even some Republicans voted for him in numbers. If you want a health care plan to be approved, or to shore up Social Security, a strong majority of the country will need to support the President. Obama can do that. Clinton cannot.

No Republicans or even formerly red state conservative Democrats will be able to support linton on domestic issues because they would be voted out of office. Having seen it "up close and personal" in NH, I now see how radioactive a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be.

I conclud    

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):