Clinton sees no momentum problem

jaycee, Ventura, California — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:00:43 GMT

We should consider the political dynamic that will result if we do manage to elect Hillary POTUS. GWB’s policies and the behavior of the Republican majority in congress have left their coalition in disarray. They need a common enemy to rally their troops. It will be in the political interest of Republican politicians of all stripes to try and derail any major accomplishments for a Clinton administration.

No Republican politician will find it in his or her interest to associate with any health care proposal, for instance, which includes the hot-button phrase “government mandates.” But they are politicians after all. If they see that they are facing an oncoming tsunami of voter sentiment with a charismatic leader like Obama out in front, watch how quickly they try to climb on top of the wave and go along for the ride.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

D Andrews, Charlotte, NC — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:01:12 GMT

"Question: Sure Ohio is a swing state, but does Clinton really see Texas going from red to blue in 2008?"

Follow along, she spoke of the type of electorate ... the broad electorate ... that these states have. She didn't refer to winning either state in the general. She spoke of winning over those types of voters.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Ron Allen — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:01:38 GMT

That is what an arrogant and stubborn president is like -- one who does not admit almost anything. Bush does not like to acknowledge reality, and Hillary does not want to admit reality. Welcome to new President Bush.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:03:54 GMT

One day before three contests her campaign has already said it expects her to lose, Hillary Clinton today declined to admit any concern over the momentum her rival could pick up if he sweeps February's primaries and caucus

Kind of like the New England Patroits saw no problem with the momentum the New York Giants had coming into the super bowl....

Look where it got them.....

(Question: Sure Ohio is a swing state, but does Clinton really see Texas going from red to blue in 2008?)

LOL, the dems can't even come up with a legitimate contender to take on John Cornyn after Watts backed out for getting involved with The Clinton's money man in Texas. The democrats are just sitting on their hands on this one in Texas. I have not heard one person of power in Texas come out for The Clinton's, and if they do, then their name is mud.

Obama's college classmate and friend Juan Garza is trying to set something up here for Obama to come to Corpus Christi. What will be interesting is who will draw the bigger crowds; The Clinton's or Obama? Of course Juan will be in a fight to the death himself, like Hillary when he takes on Todd Hunter in the general election.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

taylor — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:04:17 GMT

Always an excuse...never because it is "HER"

BTW people in Maine could vote adsentee in their caucus...caucus is not an excuse.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John, Houston,TX — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:05:55 GMT

"Clinton said Americans had positive memories of the Clinton Administration." SAY WHAT?????? She never ceases to amaze.....

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Ron, TX — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:08:07 GMT

There's absolutely zero chance of California, New York, Pennsylvania, and the rest of the exorbitantly blue states ever voting for a Republican. Hillary seems to be quite confused about this. The only place to bring new voters into the democratic ballot box is not traditional democrats, those votes can already be tallied. The only place to bring new voters to the democratic box is moderate dems, independents, and moderate Republicans.

Her caucus excuse stinks like a skunk. Her racial scapegoating is sickening. Obama won Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, and Missouri, all of which are primaries, and the last four of which don't have disproportional represenation of minorities.

So, I don't know, is she being honest? I don't think so...

Clinton sees no momentum problem

j fl — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:08:33 GMT

She was stating what she thinks to be true. She will win Texas and Ohio and if it goes farther than that, she will pick up Pennsylvania as well. She is correct.Then she will have momentum and the Obama folks will be whining about superdelegates.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:08:59 GMT

"...Question: Sure Ohio is a swing state, but does Clinton really see Texas going from red to blue in 2008?)..."

Your Obama-Rama-Ding-Dong bias betrays you again.
How about asking if any single one of the Red-States that Obama won like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, or South Carolina would swing Blue just for Obama?
We all know the answer to that question.
First Read, you are once again re-defining the meaning of the term "YELLOW JOURNALISM."

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Ollie McMillan, Seattle WA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:09:17 GMT

I am for Obama and was at Caucus in Washington state on Saturday. It was amazing and I see a real cross section of support. I still dont' understand how he's not getting credit for winning states that are not heavy in african american base. He's winning everywhere and by a couple of touchdowns. She seems to have written off that demographic completely. He is gaining in her base demographics.

Texas and Ohio are going to be huge. I hope that Obama could steal one of those states and split the other. That would be HUGE for him.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Joe, St. Louis, MO — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:09:48 GMT

Wow, just wow. the arrogance on display here is unbelievable.

It's OK though Hillary - the first stage is always denial.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

john doe — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:11:06 GMT

FLIP FLOPPA OBAMA: I just heard on the news that Obama has changed his view on the troop withdrawal. He is now evidently supporting Hillary Clinton's stand. Obama, your judgment before just shows how inexperienced you are in real issues. You should get some facts and experience before you make bad decisions.
Hillary has been right all along on the way the troop withdrawal should be conducted.
Also, I can't see John Edwards supporting Obama because Hillary is must closer to John Edwards on the issues. John and Hillary both support universal healthcare, Obama doesn't.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

ohio — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:13:19 GMT

Ohioans will look at Obama's winning streak as true wins. It doesn't matter if they were "expected" or not. The average voter dosn't know what states are "expected" to go to which candidate. Hillary is showing a very unappealing quality that our current leader has - inability to admit the truth & admit mistakes. The truth is momentum is building in Ohio towards Obama - he has the most delegates, the most states, and the most votes.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

S. Ruff, Virginia — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:13:21 GMT

Does she want to be President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or does she just want to be President of the "big" states?
She is also in denial about the delegate count...she is now behind. She is also behind in the Popular vote. Denial is the first symptom in Dis"ease".

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Monica L. -DC — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:14:24 GMT

Bush just endorsed Hillary! If McCain or Hillary win, Bush wins. More war, more tax breaks for the ultra-rich.

Hillary=Bush in a nylons.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Lance, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:15:13 GMT

I think it is Barack Obama who doesn't wish to speak to reality. He's still in Mr. Rogers neighborhood. All fluff and no substance. Read Paul Krugman's column today on the venom spewing from the Obama camp. So much for the new politics. And read the piece in the NY Times about Obambi caving in to the special interests. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
The new President Bush is Barack Obama. No plans, no substance, and he votes present 130 times in the Illinois legislature to avoid taking tough stances. Hillary is not perfect, but she is smarter than Obama and her followers haven't started acting like they belong to a cult of personality.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

The People — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:15:57 GMT

Agreed.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

kenn — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:18:03 GMT

DONT WORRY OBAMA IS THE CANIADATE ,MSNBC AND CNN AND FOX MADE SURE YOU GOT WHAT THEY WANTED IT.HILLIARY IS HISTORY.ENJOY CHANGE WITHOUT PURPOSE and REPUBLICANS WHO FIGHT YOU CHANGE EVERY STEP.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Al, KS — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:20:05 GMT

So OH and TX are the new fire wall...after CA was the fire wall on Feb 5th...after NH was the original fire wall. Sooner or later you have to win the states between the fire walls or the fire will get out of control. I suspect the Obama fire is already out of control and that he will burn through one of the states in the next fire wall. I wonder...is the next fire wall after TX and OH the super delegates.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

RENEA PLYMOUTH,MI — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:20:23 GMT

LET ME SEE HILLARY SAYS ALL THE STATES OBAMA WON WERE BECAUSE THE VOTERS WERE WELL OFF DEMOCRATS, IT WAS A CAUCUS STATE, THE BLACK VOTE, IT WAS BORDERING HIS HOME STATE, IT BECAUSE HE HAD FAMILY CONECTION TO THE STATE AND ON AND ON AND ON.WHAT ARE HILLARY REASON FOR WINNING THE STATES SHE WON?

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:20:53 GMT

Hey Lance.. .
I have received that Hillary message board template too
.. Obama... no experience.... Rezko..... Cult.... present votes.....

How would you like it if someoen inspired you and all of a sudden everyone called you a cult follower?

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:22:33 GMT

For the record, look at their advisors...
Clinton has selected people who agreed with the Iraq invasion (with the exception of Clark) and Obama has surrounded himself with people who opposed the Iraq war.
Clintonistas are a cult!!!!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Dennis, St. Louis, Missouri — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:24:04 GMT

I am a life-long Democrat. I have voted for only one Republican in a general election in my life: Ronald Reagan. This year, I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary in Missouri. Of all candidates on the ballot this year, Senator Clinton most closely matches the priorities that I deem important in these unsettled times: 1) A prudent end to the Iraq War while maintaining a strong defense against terrorist threats that will certainly continue to plaque the civilized world. 2) A fiscally responsible plan to restore the economic health of the nation without increasing an already ballooning national deficit. 3) A real attempt to gain universal health coverage for all citizens with few, if any, loopholes for people to ‘opt out’. 4) An energy policy that provides real incentive for alternative fuels while reining in the power of big oil. This is in stark contrast with Senator Barak Obama, who I perceive as having little or no experience, record, or plan for dealing with any of these issues.

Unfortunately, my preferred candidate did not win the majority of votes in Missouri, although she did win in 109 of the 114 counties in Missouri and narrowly lost in Cole and Nodaway Counties. Senator Clinton actually won Jackson County, but lost in the City of Kansas City which is not separate from Jackson County as the City of St. Louis is separate from St. Louis County.

I am very concerned at the trends I see in Missouri and throughout the country as Senator Obama is championed by many elements in the media as racking up enormous wins. There are even statements that he is doing so well in “red” states. Do you really believe that a ticket headed by Senator Obama will win states like Utah, North Dakota, Idaho and the like? I doubt it. Similarly, Senator Obama will have a very difficult time winning Missouri if his only base of support is Kansas City and St. Louis. It appears to me that his appeal is primarily to African-Americans and those whom I refer to as “high-brow liberals” – highly educated, well off financially. Senator Clinton has demonstrated appeal to those of us who are more conservative or moderate in nature. In other words, she is appealing to ‘Reagan Democrats’. If you look at the Missouri exit polls, you will find that 24% of Democratic Primary voters would not be satisfied with anyone on the ticket except Senator Clinton (21%) or were not satisfied with any of the current candidates on the ticket (3%). These are ‘Reagan Democrats’ who are just looking to be harvested by a conservative, but not right-wing candidate such as Senator John McCain.

I would encourage my party to take a long, hard look at the exit polls coming out of states like Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, and even California. Democrats are on the verge of nominating a candidate who probably cannot win any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line, any border state, and maybe not even California. If such occurs, it will because of Democrats like me who will be casting our vote for Senator McCain.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Adam/NYC — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:24:42 GMT

It sounds like she's trying to divide the Democratic Party. And, that doesn't sound like a very good strategy for taking back the Whie House.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

kenn — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:25:45 GMT

I care what people in alaska think come on ,they didnt attack Iowa they attacked NY thats the problem with MSNBC and a few select people like you and all your rich educated college friends, we are represented not by the few but the many so move to a BLUE state or shut up

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Rob in NV — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:28:18 GMT

Obama has yet to win a single major industrial state except his own state of IL. He can win all the small so-called "red states" he wants, but if he can't win in NY, CA, FL, MI, NJ, OH, TX, or PA, he has no business being the nominee. Ohio and Texas are coming up. He has a huge opportunity to prove to us that he can WIN in these major states. If he can't prove it, he should withdraw his candidacy and not be a spoiler for the GOP.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John - swing state of Missouri that voted for Obama — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:28:52 GMT

If the Clintons loose in Ohio or Texas does that mean that she will pull out of the race? Or will the arrogance keep them pushing for Super Delegates to consider her the winner.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Karissa, Austin TX — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:29:04 GMT

Arrogance here, indeed. Of course, we ARE reading from the MOST OBAMA-BIASED network on TV, front-runner to CNN.

I am actually from Texas. And the support here for Hillary is amazing.

I think we can all agree that nothing has been predicted correctly by anyone. Not the nay-saying bloggers, not the pundits, not even Wolf Blitzer and whatever that jerk's name is that made the "Chelsea being pimped out" comment.

SEXISM SEXISM SEXISM

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Jim, Eugene,Oregon — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:29:05 GMT

This woman is so out of touch with reality. She is about to get a BIG wake up call. She is another George Bush on steriods.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Patty, SD, CA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:29:36 GMT

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

Clinton is not perfect but she doesn't avoid voting in issues. Obama avoids voting in the senate just so it doesn't come back to bite him. what a coward.

If Obama wind the nomination eh will be a 4year president.

Obama=Bush

No independent thinking. Just do as you are told.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

raider dem, maryland — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:29:37 GMT

(Question: Sure Ohio is a swing state, but does Clinton really see Texas going from red to blue in 2008?)
-----------------------------------------------------
Ok, so if the reporter is going to knock her on saying she would do well in the TX primary, but then go on to say she implied that she could turn TX from red to blue, then why is everyone making a big deal about Obama winning primaries in other Southern states that will never be anything but red states?

Clinton sees no momentum problem

john seattle wa — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:30:06 GMT

It is going to be so sweet to see the former First Lady and Sitting Senator Clinton pounce the PeP Rally (Crock-r-us') Presidential nominee called Obama. Get a grip folks--this is strategy and he is losing. Those wins are mainly the "Crock-us" forums and a joke. In my state I had one hour between 6-7pm to show up. Furthermore if you think he is tapping in to her base--guess again--He is the black candidate and they are so ignorant they do not even realize he is mulatto and they are voting for a half truth based on pride. I guess this redefines the "Black Pride" movement to the "1/2 Black Deride" movement that he has perpetuated subliminally.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Blaine — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:30:15 GMT

Hillary is generic next to Barack. All of her answers during the debate season were lacking in specifics and built around her "supposed" 35 years of helping us all. PLEASE. As for Krugman, whom I respect, he has an opinion like everyone else. An OPINION. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Ed G — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:30:36 GMT

Interesting, after McCain loses two out of three, his response is "we have more work to do".

After Clinton loses four straight, her campaign response is basically "those states don't count."

It seems there's a different excuse for each of the 20+ losses incurred this year... that's the black state, the organized state, the smart state, the men state, the working state, etc. etc. And my favorite: that's a state democrats don't win.

Question: why would we want to nominate someone for our party is ready to conceed half the nation before the first ballot is cast?? Personally, I think the whole country is looking for change.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Richard, Clarksburg, WV — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:30:54 GMT

You know Senator Clinton, you know that you are right. You know, after all we don't need a President that inspires people, we need, you know, a President that works hard and intruding into every American's life as possible.

For those that haven't picked up on it yet "you know" gets really annoying if it is used so many times in every speach. I am not a Senator Obama supporter, but I can see that he is inspiring people to vote. Seems like Senator Clinton already hit her high water mark and all after is decline. The tid-bits about the "super delegates" only reenforces my belief that she will use any trick available to win. That strategy will only result in her not winning the general election. Do we really need another president that polarizes everyone? And pardon me if it sounds to me like she was saying that small states don't really count as long as she gets the big states. Doesn't sound like an all inclusive mentality to me.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Rob in NV — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:31:21 GMT

I agree with Lance in Ste. Genevieve, MO... I watched a complete Obama speech on TV this weekend, and I did not hear one single word of specifics in the entire thing. It was amazing oratory, but it was all fluff... it was like, "I'm for motherhood and apple pie" and the crowds cheered. Well, DUH, aren't we ALL for motherhood and apple pie??? I was stunned that he spoke for all that time and said absolutely NOTHING that had anything to do with BEING PRESIDENT. I'm beginning to think this really IS a fairy tale!!!!!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Rick,ky — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:32:05 GMT

Awwwwwwwwwwww, J. Merle, ready to become a McCain Democrat. We will Not miss You, because Reagon Democrat's are coming Home in DROVES as witnessed by voter turnout across America.Obamaramadingdong that, you sore Loser. The air is very Rare indeed in Weschester, NY. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love seeing You Explode Daily. Absolutely Love it!

Barack Obama for President!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Smith, AZ — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:32:42 GMT

J. Merle,
What the heck is "yellow journalism"? And what are you talking about red states turning blue for Obama? Are you blind to reality? Don't you know that these red states simply did not "turn blue" to vote for Obama. They remain staunchly Republican because of their southern upbringing. They voted for Obama because they saw the polarizing and divisive nature of Hillary Clinton, not because they turned into blue states. Simply put, they want change. You should not separate America into 2 different colors. America is one and it wants change as demonstrated by the overwhelming support from Americans across all political perspectives.
The only reason you can expect Hillary to win in Texas is because of the Hispanics.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John M., San Diego, CA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:32:53 GMT

Maybe Clinton can hang on in OH for 2 weeks in the face of overwhelming evidence she is less electable and fairs poorly vs. McCain. I wouldn't bet on it though.

Even if she does, NE+LA+WA+ME+VA+MD+DC > OH+TX in delegates. Assuming Obama puts up a margin of 5%+ tomorrow night, she is going to have to win HUGE in OH & TX to have a shot.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Patrick Casey. Salt Lake City. UT — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:33:41 GMT

Jaycee. Now ask yourself the question, why would the republicans need to rally their forces to defeat Clinton if she is so unelectable? It is so illogical to suggest that if Obama is the nominee that conservatives or the right wing media are going to let him have a cake walk to the White House, they will swiftboat him so fast your head will spin. My preference is for President Hillary Clinton, but I would nave no heartburn if Obama were to win. I do worry about him and his supporters using conservative/ media talking points to trash the Clintons, it borders on the petulant.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

JeanneGA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:34:34 GMT

Barack is a fraud! This guy is a huge lier and the American people would be fools to nominate this guy, who nobody knows about. Its Bush all over again.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Stephen in Miami — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:34:56 GMT

As a Florida voter, I take exception that Hillary claims to have won the majority of votes, which is only true if you add in Florida and Michigan. I also take exception to MSNBC and other media outlets continuing to display on their maps that both Florida and Michigan were won by Hillary. For those that say Florida should count, I say, we did not have a rally, a commercial, a direct mail piece, a robo call or any other type of campaign here in Florida. Hillary won here because absent a campaign, she was able to hold on to the lead that she had across the country back in October. For those that continue to say that doesn't matter, I would say why campaign in any other states going forward? Lets just have everyone vote now and give the nomination to Hillary!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Diane Baptista, Albuquerque,NM — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:35:52 GMT

All I can say is as we chat about small talk like this issue, Republicans are uniting. The Democrats MUST remain united; men/women, old/young, black/white/Asian/Hispanic and all races. We will never take back America to create change/jobs/battle climate change/gain world respect for America if we divide as Democrats. Lets cut the mud slinging and UNITE!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Cathy, Upstate NY — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:00 GMT

Paul Krugman's article in the NYT today was completely accurate and well written. It simply echos the thoughts of all of us Democrats who care about issues, not fluff and cult-like fanaticism. It is so true that Obama supporters comments as a whole just drip with venom and vile hatred. That is NOT a message of "hope", it's a message of "hate". Rallying impressionable students into thinking you are a rock star and getting them to vote for you as if it was "American Idol", that is not an accomplishment...that is brainwashing from the cult of a self-named Prophet. Go read the article! Hillary For President...Experience Matters!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Scott, Seattle — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:24 GMT

Who is the Queen of Denial? I think it is a culmination of all of the recent news combined. The $5 million loan to the campaign. Sure...she is raising more money, or so they say. The replacement of Doyle for blowing through campaign funds in Iowa?

Clinton sees no momentum problem

kenn — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:29 GMT

JERRY YOU WANNA BUY AN OBAMA IN 2012 SHIRT IM SURE YOUR GONNA LOVE THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS OF UNBRIDLED LIBRELISM AND RADICAL LEFT COMMUNISTIC SOCIAL PROGRAMS ENJOY.YOU CANT STOP IT ONCE THEY START IT THEY BEING THE MEDIA.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

American Voter — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:36:59 GMT

She's blind.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

J, Kansas City — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:37:48 GMT

Billary wants the power, not the job. I guess everyone forgot that she was going to FIX health care when she was first lady. She didn't do a very good job.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Crews2me, Silver Spring, MD — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:38:36 GMT

Hillary Clinton seems to be running a text book Washington insiders campaign and it’s not her fault. She is one of them and thinks like them! This is all she knows and that is why the American people are speaking from Washington St. to Maine of who their chose is. To dismiss states as black populated or caucuses or etc. is a slap in the voter face. This shows that she is willing to do anything to win but I’m here to say Obama’s candidacy exposes this fatally flawed thinking. Momentum is momentum and changing politics is just that not keeping with the status quo of talking points when down and not acknowledging with respect other realities. Woe unto her if she fails to win all of the big states like Ohio and Texas! I’m sure her talking points will be how she has a plan to secure superdeligates. It’s time to turn the page people!!!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Leslie, Los Gatos, CA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:38:39 GMT

Obama has not won "everywhere"...only a typical mindless Obama supporter would make a comment so ridiculous as that...Guess what people??? As the disillusioned press failed to report, HILLARY HAS WON: 1. FLORIDA (SEAT THESE DELAGTES, OR PAY THE PRICE) 2. New York 3. Massachusetts 4. CALIFORNIA....and you better be ready for Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to grab back a hold of this country and stop this non-sense from going any further.

OBAMA = HUGE LOSER TO ANY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE (JUST TRY AND DEFEND HIS RECORD, which is highly hypocritical in his current arguments...i.e. Dick Cheney's energy bill, which he voted for, and the fact that he has voted twice now to give more $$$ to the war in Iraq, even though he claims ahe absolutely opposes the war...NOT TO MENTION, HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH the known CRIMINAL REZKO). FOX NEWS WILL JUMP ALL OVER THESE STORIES and the fact that he is a total rookie that no one could trust with National Securitry, and will bring record TAX HIKES to the table IF HE IS NOMINATED...HE WOULD LOSE BIG!!!!! WALL STREET WILL HATE HIM!!!!!

HILLARY CLINTON IN 2008, ALL THE WAY BABY!!!!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John Mehan — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:39:33 GMT

TO: Dems, Independants, Republicans: If you still have doubts about Obama, I urge you to read the excellent article in the December Issue of Atlantic Monthly "Goodbye To All That: Why Obama Matters" (can be found on line). There you will find solid answers to the question "Why Obama", some you may not have thought of.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Jerry Tsai, Los Angeles, CA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:40:25 GMT

Senator Clinton doesn't get it. Attributing her opponent's success to receiving votes from African-Americans is race-baiting. Keep in mind that the same votes were cast in favor for her husband in his elections. Those votes are still votes; they count. Instead of congratulating your opponent, you are making excuses as to why you do not attract the same votes your husband received.

You should be ashamed, Senator Clinton. You should be ashamed.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

pablo rachi — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:40:46 GMT

hillary is funded by the same lobbyists and pacs that currently control washington- we need transformational change, not incremental garbage from someone who uses self pity to propel a failing campaign.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

jaycee, Ventura, California — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:43:49 GMT

Lance, looks to me like we have plenty of venom-spewing knuckleheads on both sides. Those of us who have taken the time to get to know Barack are more than comfortable with our candidate. It's only those who don't want to know that continue to try and paint him as a lightweight. I very much doubt that Hillary herself would agree with your "she is smarter" statement. It's pretty obvious you don't really know what you're talking about. Try coming back with some arguments with a little more substance.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Sierra, SF — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:45:42 GMT

john doe, Hillary was FOR THE WAR before she WAS AGAINST IT
Hillary FLIP FLOPPED on IRAQ !!
That's the FLIP FLOP
Originally, Hillary said she couldn't guarantee she'd have all our troops out by the 2012
Then, SHE FLIP FLOPPED

Nice try JD...... NO SALE

Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest, unethical, divisive..... AND BROKE !!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Peggy W., Starkville, MS — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:46:59 GMT

Hillary Clinton has done more for the middle class and lower income people than Obama has ever even thought about. Sure he is charismatic and has great speech writers, but that is not what we need in this country. What's left after all the great speeches are gone. We are trillion of dollars in debt, losing countless lives of soldiers in Iraq (a war that might could have been avoided if not for Bush) and in dire need for some kind of healthcare reform. Obama, in my opinion, hasn't really set forth any solid plans that would work to help our country. It's nice to see young voters turning out, but are they really looking at the issues we are facing or just riding the wave. I don't think being inspirational is enough. This country needs proven leadership and I think Hillary Clinton is what we need.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Norm Gainesville, FL — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:47:25 GMT

Winning caucuses in states where fewer than 5%
of the democratic electorate show is hardly
evidence of a powerful candidate. Hillary's wins
in states like California, New York, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, etal were with much higher voter turnouts.
For instance, about 7% of Washington state's Demorats
voted, on 5000 caucused in Maine and about 25% in
Louisiana where the black vote was 72& of that. In
Alaska, only about 500 turned out at it was at a
school in the afternoon. That was easy for the young
that back Obama but impossible for those who work
and support Hillary. There is no doubt that Obama's
machine can organize and stack caucuses, but it also
clear that he does far worse in states where there
is greater participation and people actually vote.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

kenn — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:47:50 GMT

Hey CHUCK too bad the war in IRAQ ended we could sure use a few posts on it now ohh the surge isnt working more dead this month than last why no reporting and another thing why dont mattews and tucker and mica and joe post their political opinions anbd leave their BIAS off the airwaves then they would have the same impact as the rest of us NONE.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Michael, Houston — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:49:07 GMT

J M Stanley wrote
"How about asking if any single one of the Red-States that Obama won like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, or South Carolina would swing Blue just for Obama? "

Georgia and Louisiana can both swing.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

David, Charlotte, NC — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:49:33 GMT

Lance, you're right...they belong to a cult of NO personality and low intellect.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Jamie E. — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:50:09 GMT

As a Black voter in Wisconsin, I'm pretty turned off by what Hillary Clinton has said.

Somehow Ohio and Texas better represents mainsteram America than Wisconsin and Missouri? Wisconsin is a open primary that allows same day registration and you can vote for any candidate from any party regardless of which party you register. We traditionally rank top three in turnouts for all elections and they're hoping to eclipse 50%....which is unheard of in American politics for a primary. Blacks are only 6% of the population (but 39% of Milwaukee) and Hispanics are roughly 3%. And I believe women vote something like 60 - 40.

So if she loses Wisconsin with two weeks to prepare from Super Tuesday, what will be her excuse? Blacks sticking with their own when we make up less than 8% of the electorate? A caucus that never happened?

Since she doesn't respect me as a voter, then I don't respect her to be the next President of the United Top Ten in Population States. I'm voting for Obama.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

alm, new york, ny — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:50:42 GMT

all of you who take the above reader's advice to read krugman's latest should also read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/krugman-claims-obama-supp_n_85999.html

very interesting take on krugman's take.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Steve, PA Democrat — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:51:13 GMT

I will concede that she has an advantage in texas. The demographics of the state (significant # of hispanics) lean her direction.

But I dont understand why people are giving her Ohio as well. Obama has proven that he can win large cross sections of the American people in different states across the country. He is going to have two weeks to spend in Ohio, and it has been proven that he does well when he gets a chance to introduce himself to the electorate.

And I cant understand why people think he wont do well in PA. All the people I talk to, young and old, could not vote for her. It is going to be fun.

Whatever happens, the winner of two of the remaining big 3 (OH, TX, and PA) will be the nominee.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Shtuey — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:52:46 GMT

Obama is a liar and a fraud. All you suckers who believe he doesn't take money from lobbyists and special interests, read it and weep.

This article appeared in the LA Times.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

Your golden god of change is just another politician, but you fell for his preacher act. I can't say I blame you. We're all desparate for someone to come along and do things differently. Obama knows that, and has taken advantage of you. For those of you who are still waiting to vote in primaries get educated about Obama before you throw your vote away on a con man.

"You can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Jatag Surmi — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:53:23 GMT

If Hillary didn't have the last name she has, she'd have been out of the race when Dodd left.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Kim, Pasadena, CA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:54:28 GMT

I would say to Ron from Texas that there is a chance of California going red-- that chance exists if Senator Clinton is the democratic nominee. I know she won the primary here, but there are some facts which need mentioning.

First, John McCain and the infamous (to Republicans) McCain-Finegold laws. Those laws are campaign finance reform, something that Californians appreciate. In fact, this last week, I have spoken to incredulous Republicans who did not believe me that McCain-Finegold WAS about campaign finance reform. These republicans believed that campaign finance reform WAS a republican issue. Don't laugh too hard, I have heard that from other Republicans in Texas (where my parents now live).

On the flip side, Senator Clinton has taken large amounts from special interest PACS and registered federal lobbyists (Senator Obama has not). Should the Democratic party pick Senator Clinton the Republican candidate will be for campaign finance reform and the Democratic candidate will speak for the public financing of elections, but her actions to date will contradict her every word.

Second, Senator McCain is a maverick who opposed the Republican party; Senator Clinton is an insider. Whether this argument is entirely true or not, I have already been exposed to it ad nausem in the Golden State.

Third, Senator McCain and Senator Clinton both voted to authorize the war in Iraq and to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on using force against Iran. Should Senator Clinton be the nominee expect many Democrats to look closely at John McCain because of this similarity. Also, expect some Democrats to leave the party to support Ralph Nader.

Fourth, the Republican party will unite, swallow their distrust of Senator McCain, and get out the vote to defeat Senator Clinton.

I could go on and on, but I will leave it there. It isn't that Senator Clinton is a bad choice; it is the fact that given the Republican opposition (Senator McCain) she is most likely a losing choice. It is not altogether her fault, but nonetheless, it is true. I believe Senator Obama is a great choice with a the best chance to win -- maybe even a state like Texas. Remember folks, the Democratic Presidential candidates usually don't even campaign in red states. Lots of people in those states never hear the unadulaterated Democratic message. Instead, they hear the Democratic message only as it is twisted by the Republican opposition.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an independent supporting Senator Obama. Should the Democrats select Senator Clinton, I will vote for Senator McCain -- even though I do not like the war in Iraq and I think Senator Clinton has many admirable qualities, but because I believe that campaign finance reform is absolutely critical to the repair of our damaged system and fundamental to the continuation of our liberties.

Yes we can! Obama '08

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Jim Banks, Towanda, PA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:54:28 GMT

To those totting Mr. Obama’s website for all their answers, anyone can put up a general policy statement regarding a subject and sound knowledgeable much like a charlatan can make some general statements about a deceased relative and sound like they have a channel to the afterlife. No matter how knowledgeable you try to make Obama it doesn’t change the fact that community activist/civil rights attorney and Junior Senator are his biggest achievements and I expect my president to call upon much more knowledge and experience than that without farming out the defense of this country to others I know even less.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

oknOK — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:54:56 GMT

I agree with Lance in Ste. Genevieve, MO. How does a person miss 130 votes in a couple of years? Obama doesn't take policy questions. Why? Is it because he can't ask somebody to give him the answer "two minutes before I need it"? If he wrote and knew his policies, shouldn't he be able to answer? Yes, people see only Personality right now. IF Obama gets elected, how long will it be before those who voted for him start whining because he hasn't produced "change"? Nice speeches; too bad the listeners are so naive.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Vince C, Dennis, MA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:55:10 GMT

Lance, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri: You have no idea what you're talking about.

And yeah, Hillary is being ignorant. She's alienating demographics and small states, pulling a Giuliani and focusing only on big states. The thing is, she's losing momentum and spotlight and Obama is gaining with every "small" state he wins.

Like Jeffrey Toobin on CNN said, a win is a win. It doesn't matter if it was expected; you don't get extra credit for an upset victory. And anyway, she is NOT ahead in popular vote: she's 200,000 behind at last count.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Steve Zaloudek, New York, NY — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:55:50 GMT

Hillary is totally right!! At this point, if you analyze the voters, Obama is only getting, on average between 30-40% of the White vote (with a couple of exception) and is losing the Latino and Asian votes by big margins. Also, the states that will decide the general election (MI, FL, OH, MO, PA) are primarily states that HIllary has won handily (MI, FL) or is predicted to win (OH, PA). The only exception is MO, where obama won by only 10,000 votes. So, unless he can start getting more White support, who really provides the best chance in November?? THe D candidate will get the AA votes anyway and those are not the voters who will decide the election. Its primarily White, suburban women. Who has the better chance to get those votes?? Hillary.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

bill, washington, dc — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:56:45 GMT

since when is Wisconsin not important in November?

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:57:34 GMT

I would like to point out that I just read Krugman's article and the "venom" he was mentioning seemed to be the loyalty; He didn't mention a single example of venom in word or action. Then he goes on to talk about how the media treats the Clinton's unfairly. Let me ask you, if Bill Clinton did nothing wrong in SC why was he apologizing in a black church Today?

Clinton sees no momentum problem

JBBaker — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:57:38 GMT

Hilary, brushes this off as if it is only small states with small numbers and it doesn't matter to her campaign. She should be concern about all votes. A win is a win! Be a good sport and give the prompts where they belong. Changing guards in the middle of the campaign is going to hurt her campaign more than help. It does not matter how skilled you are, it is the decision making that counts!

I read where there was some friction going on since Maggie Williams came into the camp after HRC loss to Iowa. Ms. Williams has been working with the campaign since the 3rd place loss in Iowa.

Solis Doyle a Latina and Maggie Williams and African Amercian. (mmm.. . . )For better or worse, seems a little late in the game.

Let us will not despise the small beginnings,(Mr. Obama wins) because little becomes much and his campaign did this past weekend.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Sherri Mesquite, Texas — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:58:07 GMT

Hillary isnt borrowing slogans from Bush (Uniter,not divider lol) Hillary doesn't get passes by the media, as Obama and Bush, and she has more experience than both of them put together when it comes to getting what the people want done! She isn't perfect by any means, but she is a fighter! She fails, and she learns from that failure and tries again. As for his momentum??? Reminds me of The Tortoise and the Hare :)

Clinton sees no momentum problem

oknOK — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:59:59 GMT

Can one of you Obama supporters tell me how much my taxes are going to go up if the "most liberal Democrat" is elected? I'm sorry but all that "change and hope" is going to cost. And, it will cost more when you have somebody who doesn't have a plan! Or, if he has a plan, he can't articulate it to the masses.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

MG, St. Louis, Mo. — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:00:02 GMT

Sounds like the Guliani strategy to me. Just hang back and wait until a state of your choosing comes around. Hwr statement is very troubling on many levels. Is she conceding markets because they don't fit her voting block. In a tight race she can pick and choose which states she competes in. I hope the bus doesn't just pass her by. I can't believe she has said all this!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

stopbillary — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:00:38 GMT

Queen Hillary takes the cake. She suggests that the Obama wins over the weekend weren't important because: 1) they were expected (huh?? -- so don't count them??), 2) they were caucus states (huh?? -- why does that negate them??), 3) the black vote (please, and you won California because of the female vote -- so that's not important either?)

The woman cannot assume any responsibility for anything. Instead of examining the candidate and candidate's husband's tactics, the campaign manager gets fired.

Please, folks, stop Billary!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Michael, Dallas, Texas — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:01:20 GMT

Obama is a spoiler. This "uniter" has divided the Democratic party along racial lines. The cultural elite who can afford a protest vote (Kennedys, Oprah, George Clooney)will do fine financially in a McCain Administration, low and moderate income Americans, who desperately need a Democrat in office, will lose. This is the wrong year to run a charismatic protest vote, but you can always count on Democrats to self-destruct.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Me — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:01:24 GMT

"Obama's big wins over the past few days to the caucus process and to black voters."

----

Apparently The Clinton's haven't heard of the 14th amendment. You see, black people are equal these days. They are no longer considered 3/5th of a person. They actually get one full vote, just like white people... and hispanics.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Kris STL — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:03:19 GMT

I would expect someone from st. Genevieve to spew that nosense. Barack as the new Bush yeah right. Hillary is the one we need to look out for and I can not say it enough "WHITEWATER". But of course you all like to forget the underhanded dealings of the Clinton era. Are you really ready to say let's take the devil we know?? And she is not smarter. Just whiter..... Billary is fighting so hard and loaning the campaign money b/c in the end if they get into the white house it will pay off in droves......You need to check in to reality and realize just b/c Billary can talk a good game does not mean they will act on it either..... Vote for Obama vote for change.....

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Chris Platinum, Denver, CO — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:04:22 GMT

Dennis, St. Louis, Missouri said: Democrats are on the verge of nominating a candidate who probably cannot win any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line, any border state, and maybe not even California. If such occurs, it will because of Democrats like me who will be casting our vote for Senator McCain.

If you feel that way Dennis you probably should change your affiliation! We in the Democratic Party don't need the likes of people who aare willing to throw away their vote to the other side because they got their panties in a bunch. Obama can unite the party, Hillary will only keep us apart. Join the movemnet or just move over!!!!

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Rob in NV — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:04:53 GMT

I love these comments about how the Clintons are "race baiting".

No one said a thing when Oprah Winfrey turned Barack Obama into THE BLACK CANDIDATE, but you all want to blame the Clintons when they state the obvious: Oprah turned him into THE BLACK CANDIDATE, and he gets 80+% of the black vote, and it's a FACT.

Unless you're willing to call 80+% of the black community RACIST, and Oprah Winfrey included, then don't label the Clintons that way, either.

And by the way, if you folks think the GOP is going to leave race out of this election if Obama is the nominee, I'd urge you to look back at what they did to Harold Ford when he lost his US Senate Race last year.

If you think the GOP won't do it, you're naive, or stupid, or both.

And if you think it won't WORK when they do it, then you're just plain naive.

Harold Ford can tell you: it WORKS.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:06:03 GMT

Dennis from MO--NO democrat is going to win any states south of the Mason-Dixon line. I think it's fairly immpressive that Obama was able to carry such a bellweather state as MO. MO has chosen the president since early 1900 or something like that. My question for you is why your dislike for Obama so great that you will not vote for him if nominated? Has he done or said something? He's policy positions are VERY similiar to Senator Clinton's--so what is it specifically that you don't like about him?

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Paddy, Asheville NC — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:06:26 GMT

It's incredible to me that both Hillary and Bill continue to feel the need to reduce Obama's victories in places like Louisiana to racial pride. Especially after SC, could they please just stop talking about race? It's condescending to the point of disbelief.

It's interesting how Obama's victories never matter--it's always due to black voters, the caucus format, Hillary deciding to not spend time or money in places, or implying that some states aren't that important--I mean, has he ever won a legitimate victory in their eyes? The reason she didn't have her act together this weekend is that these states weren't part of her strategy. Obama was supposed to be wiped away by Super Tuesday, just as Terry McAuliffe said after Iowa. And yet, we're not supposed to draw an inference to what kind of executive she would be by watching the management of this campaign. It's reminiscent of health care in '93--no need to release records, no need to revisit the specifics, I learned and let's just leave it at that.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Sierra, SF — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:07:51 GMT

'...In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton...'

From cbsnews.com:

'...Maine Puts Topper On Obama Sweep

Obama Takes Delegate Lead With Wins In 4 States; Feb. 11, 2008

(AP/CBS) Illinois senator Barack Obama finished a series of weekend primary and caucus contests undefeated as he bested Hillary Clinton in Maine today, according to CBS News estimates.

Obama’s victory in the Maine caucuses follow on the heels of his Saturday sweep in which he won Louisiana’s primary contest as well as caucuses in the states of Washington and Nebraska.

His winning margins ranged from substantial to crushing. In Maine, he led 59 percent to 40 percent with 99 percent of the precints reporting. In Louisiana, Obama defeated Clinton, 57 percent to 36 percent. He won in Nebraska by a 68 percent to 32 percent margin and in Washington 68 percent to 31 percent.

Obama's victory in Maine -- and the ease with which it came -- actually exceeded expectations, even though he swept the caucuses held on Super Tuesday. Clinton had the backing of the state's governor, John Baldacci, and its proximity to New Hamsphire and Massachusetts, both of which Clinton has already won this year, led some analysts to expect a close race.

Even Obama's own campaign said they didn't expect to win Maine, according to a document the campaign said was accidentally leaked earlier in the week.

In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton. ...'

COULD YOU REAPEAT THAT ?

'...In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton...'

'...The results in Maine came in the wake of a shake-up on the Clinton campaign. Sunday afternoon, Clinton campaign manager Patti Patti Solis announced she was stepping down from that post. She will be replaced by senior advisor and longtime Clinton confidant Maggie Williams...'

WOW !
That should make a BIG DIFFERENCE !!
Maggie Williams ?
WOW !!

The Billary express is back on track ;-D

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John Doe — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:08:54 GMT

Um, according to this, Bill Clinton DID win Maine and Washington? Care to comment, Hillary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1992DemPrimariesPresidential.GIF

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Heartlight 3, Maui, Hawaii — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:08:59 GMT

Rob in NV - If you want to know Obama's specifics, go to his website and read his position statements. It's all in there.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:10:29 GMT

"How about asking if any single one of the Red-States that Obama won like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, or South Carolina would swing Blue just for Obama?
We all know the answer to that question.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Monday, February 11, 2008 2:08 PM)

That's a decent point, but I think you're assuming that those states are always going to be conservative bastions. For the record, no, I doubt that Alabama and Georgia will go blue in 2008 (LA is totally in play though). But that's not the point. You should also consider that an increase in Democratic voters in 2008 raises the likelihood that down ballot candidates can win. If he looses Alabama for the presidential races but brings out enough dems in state and congressional elections to get more and better democrats elected ist will build the party in those states and increase the odds that Alabama and Georgia might go blue in 2010, 2012, 2014, etc.

It's called party building. Obama is really good at it. Clinton... not so much.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

progressive — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:10:40 GMT

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060926-obamas_first_la/

"It will shine the light. The famous saying that sunshine is the best disinfectant. This will apply some sunshine on the budgeting process. It's just one step. We've got to take more steps to control how we spend money here and make sure it's spent wisely," Obama said.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:11:49 GMT

Something is effecting the race in Texas. If not Obama's momentum from other state victories, then something else. Still looks like Clinton's state, but the race is tightening there.

Seems we've seen this before. Clinton starts out with a 20-plus point lead. As the race gets closer to that state, Obama starts closing the gap. Then it becomes a race against the clock. In most states, Obama has been able to beat the clock, but in 10 states he hasn't (eight if you discount Arkansas and New York, which he seemingly never was going to get).

Does anyone know if Texas allows early voting?

Clinton sees no momentum problem

John Doe — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:25:32 GMT

Clinton says "I am absolutely looking to Ohio...". Why isn't she looking to Wisconsin? Can someone tell me please why Clinton chooses to look now to Ohio and not Wisconsin. Clinton says "I think in Texas and Ohio, I will do very, very well, and I intend to run very competitive winning campaigns there." Why is Ohio considered more winnable than Wisconsin? She says "I have a very strong campaign already on the ground in Ohio, in Texas, we're getting, you know, prepared for Wisconsin. We're going to compete everywhere that's the advantage of being able to, you know, have the resources and have the ability to compete everywhere." I don't understand it.

Clinton sees no momentum problem

Kat, Huntington, WV — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:44:30 GMT

To Maryland, Virginia, and DC voters,
PLEASE think very long and hard before you give your delegates to Obama. He will not beat McCain and he simply is not the most qualified for this job right now. Hillary "a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)

I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?" Please vote for the best candidate! Hillary 08!!