The Obama Delusion

Very rarely is an empty suit so vividly displayed.

The Atlantic Monthly today publishes the troubled Andrew Sullivan’s ode to Barack Obama. It is hard to tell who loves Obama more – Sullivan or Obama himself – Michelle is not even in the running. Let’s examine this ludicrous fluff of an article by Andrew Sullivan because it is comprehensive and sure to be seized upon by Obama acolytes as justification for a candidacy that has long since lost its meager initial logic.

In a reversal of Mark Antony’s eulogy for Julius Caesar as written by William Shakespeare – Sullivan’s article comes to praise Obama but instead buries him.

The troubled Andrew Sullivan, in his warped universe of love for Barack Obama immediately declares what the candidacy of Obama is NOT about while also denying that Obama’s candidacy is solely for Barack Obama:

The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama. It has little to do with his policy proposals, which are very close to his Democratic rivals’ and which, with a few exceptions, exist firmly within the conventions of our politics. It has little to do with Obama’s considerable skills as a conciliator, legislator, or even thinker. It has even less to do with his ideological pedigree or legal background or rhetorical skills. Yes, as the many profiles prove, he has considerable intelligence and not a little guile. But so do others, not least his formidably polished and practiced opponent Senator Hillary Clinton.

Obama, moreover, is no saint. He has flaws and tics: Often tired, sometimes crabby, intermittently solipsistic, he’s a surprisingly uneven campaigner.

A soaring rhetorical flourish one day is undercut by a lackluster debate performance the next. He is certainly not without self-regard. He has more experience in public life than his opponents want to acknowledge, but he has not spent much time in Washington and has never run a business. His lean physique, close-cropped hair, and stick-out ears can give the impression of a slightly pushy undergraduate. You can see why many of his friends and admirers have urged him to wait his turn. He could be president in five or nine years’ time—why the rush?

All comedians and clowns know that timing matters. Shakespeare understood the question of timing in our lives when he eloquently wrote about the “tide in the affairs of men”. According to Sullivan, Obama believes that the fundmental point of his candidacy is timing.

But he knows, and privately acknowledges, that the fundamental point of his candidacy is that it is happening now. In politics, timing matters. And the most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events, from one traumatizing war in Southeast Asia to another in the most fractious country in the Middle East. The legacy is a cultural climate that stultifies our politics and corrupts our discourse.

Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you.

Andrew Sullivan, an unhappy alienated conservative gay Ripublican with too many ridiculous notions to discuss in a brief article, is making the argument that is echoed by Obama and his increasingly cultish supporters. The argument is, again, that Obama represents a “new politics”. The notion of a “new” politics is so fundamentally silly it can only be described as “Biblical” in its silliness.

Andrew Sullivan and Obama supporters and all the propagandists who believe in the concept of a “new politics” should open up the ancient texts. The Bible, describes an always turbulent, always churning “eternal sea”. The “eternal sea” is a metaphor for POLITICS. There is no “new” politics. There is only “politics”. A “new” politics would be equivalent to a river flowing from a lake up to the steep mountain top.

The central illogic and non-existence of a “new” politics however seems to escape Sullivan even as Obama succeeds in selling this debilitating snake oil.

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

The traces of our long journey to this juncture can be found all around us. Its most obvious manifestation is political rhetoric. The high temperature—Bill O’Reilly’s nightly screeds against anti-Americans on one channel, Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” on the other; MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” on the one side, Ann Coulter’s Treason on the other; Michael Moore’s accusation of treason at the core of the Iraq War, Sean Hannity’s assertion of treason in the opposition to it—is particularly striking when you examine the generally minor policy choices on the table. Something deeper and more powerful than the actual decisions we face is driving the tone of the debate.

Sullivan sounds like a hallucinating priest at a Moonie temple. How does such tripe as this get published: “Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.” It gets worse.

Sullivan traipses through fields too thick for his rationalizations. Ignoring “devil in the details” reality Sullivan pretends we all agree on all issues – it’s the fault of those bad politicians – those bad baby boomer politicians.

On foreign policy issues and domestic issues Sullivan decrys the “hyperventilation” of sloganeering partisans. On foreign policy Sullivan declares that the actual issues are not the central issues “But it is more a fight over how we define ourselves and over long-term goals than over what is practically to be done on the ground.” On domestic policy, Sullivan the policy issues as “underwhelming”. Sullivan believes that the differences between the various parties “the difference is more technical than fundamental.” Sullivan declares that there is a “large consensus” on just about every issue from abortion to gay marriage.

Sullivan, like Obama, has a culprit to blame for all our troubles: “The answer lies mainly with the biggest and most influential generation in America: the Baby Boomers.”

Sullivan, like Obama, has another culprit: Bill Clinton. The origin and “professionalization” of “the battle” Sullivan traces to the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination fights in 1987 and 1991. But it is the presidency of Bill Clinton, “who was elected with only 43 percent of the vote in 1992” as Sullivan reminds us that is to blame for rebooting “the Vietnam power struggle”.

The 2000 elections were bitter, Sullivan writes. True. Then there is this derangement:

With 9/11, Bush had a reset moment—a chance to reunite the country in a way that would marginalize the extreme haters on both sides and forge a national consensus. He chose not to do so. It wasn’t entirely his fault. On the left, the truest believers were unprepared to give the president the benefit of any doubt in the wake of the 2000 election, and they even judged the 9/11 attacks to be a legitimate response to decades of U.S. foreign policy. Some could not support the war in Afghanistan, let alone the adventure in Iraq. As the Iraq War faltered, the polarization intensified. In 2004, the Vietnam argument returned with a new energy, with the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry’s Vietnam War record and CBS’s misbegotten report on Bush’s record in the Texas Air National Guard. These were the stories that touched the collective nerve of the political classes—because they parsed once again along the fault lines of the Boomer divide that had come to define all of us.

Sullivan, like Obama, wants to absolve Bush of responsiblity for the current state of affairs. The analysis is bunk. Most Americans and certainly the leadership of the Democratic Party supported the war in Afghanistan. Most Americans were horrified by the 9/11 attacks. Most Americans supported an attack on Iraq. Sullivan is simply lying or he is deeply delusional. More than likely though, he is lying. This is a favorite line of attack by Ripublicans – that Democrats were not united with Ripublicans after the 9/11 attacks.

Sullivan then trashes John Kerry because Kerry was trashed by Ripublican swift-boaters. According to Sullivan, “Kerry was arguably the worst candidate on earth to put to rest the post-1960s culture war…” Blame the victim, Andy.

This is the critical context for the election of 2008. It is an election that holds the potential not merely to intensify this cycle of division but to bequeath it to a new generation, one marked by a new war that need not be—that should not be—seen as another Vietnam. A Giuliani-Clinton matchup, favored by the media elite, is a classic intragenerational struggle—with two deeply divisive and ruthless personalities ready to go to the brink. Giuliani represents that Nixonian disgust with anyone asking questions about, let alone actively protesting, a war. Clinton will always be, in the minds of so many, the young woman who gave the commencement address at Wellesley, who sat in on the Nixon implosion and who once disdained baking cookies. For some, her husband will always be the draft dodger who smoked pot and wouldn’t admit it. And however hard she tries, there is nothing Hillary Clinton can do about it. She and Giuliani are conscripts in their generation’s war. To their respective sides, they are war heroes.

Sullivan plays the fear card in writing that these are extraordinary times due to Islamic fundamentalists, available “destructive technology”, al-Qaeda, Iran, “and the collapse of America’s prestige and moral reputation”. Sullivan imagines another 9/11 type attack and deludes himself that “only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf”.

After starting his love letter to Obama with “The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama” we are back to “It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person.”

Polling reveals Obama to be the favored Democrat among Republicans. McCain’s bipartisan appeal has receded in recent years, especially with his enthusiastic embrace of the latest phase of the Iraq War. And his personal history can only reinforce the Vietnam divide. But Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

This tripe is simply embarrassing. Sullivan’s husband must be jealous. Sullivan seems to have missed Colin Powell and Condi Rice. What about their faces? Are Powell and Rice not black or brown enough? All these atmospherics about Obama from the lovestruck pen of Sullivan and Obama supporters are drivel. The reason why there is so much fighting in American politics today is because we are a deeply divided nation on fundamental policy ideas – and these fights matter because they will determine the course of the new American century. It is not a matter of personality, but of ideas.

The rest of Sullivan’s article is fat on the tripe. Obama will be best on Iraq says Sullivan without any actual evidence save Obama’s early self-serving opposition to the Iraq war. Of course, Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war is viewed by Sullivan as a positive even as he wasted most of the essay blaming Democrats for being insufficiently supportive of Bush.

Sullivan, like Obama makes a generational argument for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. “Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics.” Translated, from Obama worship this means that Hillary has been fighting for progressive values while Obama has been AWOL. For Obama the battle for “civil rights, sexual revolution, Vietnam War. Those all sort of passed me by.” Obama’s weakness on Social Security is admired by Sullivan as is “is openness to bombing Pakistan”.

On religion Hillary is “at once poignant and repellent” according to Sullivan. Earlier, Sullivan posits Hillary as a member of the left divide on religion “between God-fearing Americans and the peacenik atheist hippies of lore” by the end of his essay “her faith may well be genuine” but Sullivan is appalled because “because its Methodist genuineness demands that she not profess it so tackily”.

Obama of course is a saint. Comically, Obama attributes his faith to his mother – a “secular humanist”. Sullivan after trashing secular humanists discovers Obama’s mama is the enemy. Unlike Hillary’s faith, Sullivan does not question Obama’s dubious conversion.

Sullivan’s fawning racism is nauseating. There are plenty of dull, tedious, wonkish African-Americans. Only now, in 2007 has Ripublican Sullivan discovered the Urkel’s in the African-American community. What a shock, not all African-Americans are flashy:

And this, of course, is the other element that makes Obama a potentially transformative candidate: race. Here, Obama again finds himself in the center of a complex fate, unwilling to pick sides in a divide that reaches back centuries and appears at times unbridgeable. His appeal to whites is palpable. I have felt it myself. Earlier this fall, I attended an Obama speech in Washington on tax policy that underwhelmed on delivery; his address was wooden, stilted, even tedious. It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I’d just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader. That I should have been struck by this was born in my own racial stereotypes, of course. But it won me over.

Like the Ripublican he is, Sullivan sees Obama through the prisim not of civil rights but of “black victimology”. For Sullivan, Obama is sui generis, an original, never seen before “new” man. Obama for Sullivan is a black man who downplays the racial; not a black victimologist nor a black conservative, not Al Sharpton, not Clarence Thomas, not Julian Bond, not Colin Powell, not a post-racial Tiger Woods, not a Jesse Jackson, not identity politics, but yes on identity politics.

Sullivan sums up the case for Obama with this silliness:

The paradox is that Hillary makes far more sense if you believe that times are actually pretty good. If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong. Clinton will do. And a Clinton-Giuliani race could be as invigorating as it is utterly predictable.

But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.

We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama.

Obama supporters who quote this tripe should be warned that Sullivan does not have the slightest idea why we support Hillary Clinton for President.

We support Hillary because we do see the great dangers ahead and the dangers we are in. We want Hillary because she has the experience and the fortitude to navigate through the perils we face. We support Hillary because we feel the urgency to reverse course NOW. Hillary shares our progressive vision for America. Hillary will represent a new American face to the world. And Hillary will fight the very people Obama has already surrendered to.

With Hillary we will finally cross the bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton not only talked about, but along with Hillary and Al Gore, built.

Share

110 thoughts on “The Obama Delusion

  1. I never got this “new politics” meme. Just because Obama becomes president, does these idiots think that the right is going to agree on tax increases and left for privatizing social security. It trivializes the fundamental difference in the view points on what conservatives beleive and what liberals beleive.

    Once Obama gets elected president, if the right is willing to voluntarily get off their talk shows and declare that the war is over and so we are retiring then I will be willing to consider it. Andrew Sullivan is the same guy who supported the Iraq war until 2006 and was chastising the liberals who were against it. Now all of a sudden he turns a 180 on the war and Obama is his candidate. McCain was his favorite until 2006 for his steadfast support of the war (his quotes not mine). Now he is in the Obama/Ron Paul camp for having opposed the war. This is the same guy who calls Hillary a dick cheney in the pantsuit while he was accusing her in 2005 of waffling her support for the war.

    At its core, this guy is a phoney, a chameleon, who takes position opposite to what Hillary takes. Clinton bashing is what puts food at his table, and so he is going to flip-flop on his own positions as long as he can take a position against hers or support a/any candidate running against her. The problem is there is no media watch dog to out these pundits on their flip flops, the same ones these clowns accuse Hillary of doing.

  2. Now Taylor Marsh is reporting stupid Mark Haleprin is accusing Lynn Sweet of using Clinton oppo on Obama. First, who cares? If you can’t see Obama’s fingerprints all over stories about Hill, then you are not paying attention. Second, I sense a change in the media. They really want to go after her. It’s weird. Nothing about her energy plan from the major papers, but this? Even the NY times reporting on her energy plan went completely off topic with some story about conservatives trying to get her FL records.

  3. It’s the first article that puts all the arguments for Obama in one place. The entire point of the article, unwittingly, is that the support for Obama is somehow about “feelings”.

    There is no argument such as “she believes in X and I believe in Y”. It’s once again the “feeling” that Americans want a uniter not a divider. That didn’t go to well the last time.

  4. Well, people fell for that with Bush. But honestly I “feel” excited about Hillary for President. I think she’s going to make a great President.

  5. Admin:

    You are so right….Sullivan’s personal “bodily” poetry about Obama says it all…….

    BTW: After his marriage, is Sullivan finally allowed to voye in the US? Just interested if he can lovingly “feel his personal” touch on Obama in that way at least?

  6. I Love this quote:

    “We support Hillary because we do see the great dangers ahead and the dangers we are in. We want Hillary because she has the experience and the fortitude to navigate through the perils we face. We support Hillary because we feel the urgency to reverse course NOW. Hillary shares our progressive vision for America. Hillary will represent a new American face to the world. And Hillary will fight the very people Obama has already surrendered to.”

    watching msnbc now..the Super Tuesday Green..episode..

    Somehow, the pundits have gotten the message. The attack mode recommended by Matthews before and after the last debate has become a another “fatal” error in judgment by the Obama and Edwards campaigns respectively…

    Andrea Mitchell has tried spinning responsibilty for the attacks as somehow Hillary’s fault b/c she played the gender card. Unfortunately, all her guest interviews have declared that notion false, that in fact, Hillary has never used the gender card…Hillary stated: “It’s because I’m winning”…that have brought on an escalation of attacks.. (playing the videotape verifying her words)

    POOF! Obama and Edwards left standing in the ruins of yet another strategic error.. following Matthew’s advise.. 🙂

    Mrs. S.

  7. A few lines from a sonnet by Sullivan to Obama:

    “you are the face I dream about”

    “your lean physique makes even your crabby, tic days bearable through this dark period”

    One flowery voice to another flowery voice…..

    Get ready for a Sullivan-obama duet!

  8. Well, the central message of that article is that Gen X doesn’t want to wait any longer for the Baby Boomers to hand over power. They want the Baby Boomers to hand over power now to the only guy they have running. It’s not so much a new politics they’re longing for, as a new generation running the politics. And, of course, they can do it better than those icky old Clintons because partisan divide is a generational thing, not a fact of the human condition. Uh huh. Besides, women go crazy for a sharp dressed man.

    I was struck in Obama’s book at the disdain he evinced for the Clintons. I’m not sure that they is all about but it’s clear he thinks he could have done a better job handling the crisis in the 90s. I think they’ve got it all wrapped up in this idea that it was simply the wars of the sixties playing themselves out again. Yes, there is a culture war, but that war isn’t what this group thinks it is. Humankind makes progress (civil rights, feminism, environmental movement) and then spends a few decades contemplating and integrating that progress. To my mind, that cycle runs forty to fifty years and so I am not surprised that 40-something years after civil rights and the rebirth of feminism, we have our first viable African American candidate and female candidate for president. The time has come for this change. Whether Obama was in his thirties, or forties or fifties is irrelevant. The point is – all of us – whether we’re twenty or eighty, want to bust out of the paradigm that we’ve been trapped in for centuries. And the proof of that is that Hillary is a baby boomer. Baby boomers are anxious to move on, and Gen X and Gen Y. I have very little doubt that had Hillary never married Bill, that she’d still be candidate now.

    Edwards isn’t going to win because nobody is in the mood for electing another white guy. Not even the Republicans. Obama isn’t going to win because, as Sullivan so beautifully articulated, he offers nothing in the way of substance and we have had enough of intellectual lightweights running the most powerful nation on earth. Hillary’s going to win because she inverts the paradigm, completes the work we began fifty years ago and offers as much intellectual fire power, discipline and personal authority as we have ever been offered in a presidential candidate. Even more so than Bill, she’s the powerhouse we’ve been waiting for. And her time is now.

  9. Great analysis admin. I’d say more but I haven’t had my coffee yet. You know, Sullivan’s tribute to/case for Obama is all part of this “the boomer’s did it” argument. It’s all us boomers that corrupted American politics. What I don’t think Obama understands that Hillary gets is the complexity of social issues. Sullivan makes it seem like its ideology vs pragmatism. the reason Hillary is often described as pragmatic is you can have all the lofty ideals in the world but unless you have the skill to enact them you cannot do anything in terms of change. The other point that comes to me is that it isn’t about just Hillary or just Obama. Hillary is quite serious about teamHillary becomin’ teamAmerica. She understands that we have to have a greater degree of engagement in order to change this country. Obama somehow thinks is mere presence can get things done. I’ll be more articulate when I am awake
    mollyj

  10. The boomers didn’t event our politics. Politics is politics. It’s not going to change. One we should look for antipate is an expanded period of Democratic majorities after the failures o conservatism. By the wat, Obama is a boomer.

  11. Bama may be a boomer by age but there are some real differences among the boomers. And he’s playin’ to the youngin’s about the ideas of old people, remember? And not showin’ up to the AARP forums? No, you are quite right, boomers didn’t invent politics. We have, however, endeavored to make some changes. World events will force us to change or be party to our own extinction either through environmental crisis or nuclear crisis. Obama’s ideas, such as they are, haven’t been in the oven long enough. mollyj

  12. “But it is the presidency of Bill Clinton, ‘who was elected with only 43 percent of the vote in 1992’ as Sullivan reminds us that is to blame…”

    Sully is an even bigger fool that he appears on the ‘Chris Matthews Show’. In a three-way race, 43% is a landslide, further evidenced by the massive electoral landslide in ’92.

  13. Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton touredNortheast Iowa Monday, focusing mainly on middle class financial insecurities and other domestic concerns.

    At Wartburg College — where hundreds of people braved cold, windy weather to see her speak — Clinton said her energy proposals would create five million new American jobs in the next 10 years. The New York senator unveiled her energy policy in Cedar Rapids earlier that day.

    “We need a source of new, good jobs,” she said. “If we don’t rebuild the middle class, we are in danger of seeing the American dream recede further and further in the distance.”

    When presenting a variety of issues, Clinton said Americans must take responsibility to create change, and not rely solely on government. On energy, she said the country could learn from Californians, who consume 30 percent less energy per person than the rest of the country.

    Surrounded by people from all sides while she spoke, the former first lady took questions from audiences in Wartburg and Franklin Pierce University in New Hampshire. The two colleges partnered to put on the event as part of a voter education effort.

    A New Hampshire student asked how new energy jobs would affect the minimum wage. Clinton responded by referencing a woman she met at Oelwein Middle School earlier that day.

    The woman, wearing a maroon apron, said she made a waitress’ minimum wage of $2.14, and relied on tips for the rest of her income. Clinton told her that she would raise the minimum wage, and increase the earned income tax credit for low-income Americans.

    Focusing on issues — like education and middle class security — that affect Americans the most caused Victor Garcia, a seventh grader at Oelwein Middle School, to prefer Clinton over Barack Obama, the other candidate he has seen in person.

    “She stuck up for the people, told us what we needed to hear,” he said.

    When Clinton asked crowds in Oelwein and Wartburg if they knew someone without health insurance, about one-third of the people at each venue raised their hands. She said her health proposal would open up the more affordable insurance members of Congress receive, and provide tax credits for those who can’t afford it. Democratic rival Chris Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, has proposed a similar plan.

    “There are 47 million uninsured Americans today,” Clinton said. “I think there are a lot more uninsured people than we think.”

    Clinton’s emphasis on universal health care pleased Shantel Leary, a fourth-year Wartburg College student. She couldn’t afford to visit the dentist growing up because her family didn’t have health insurance. She said Clinton’s plan sounds like it would provide similar coverage to what she saw in Europe, where she lived for a year.

    “Everyone in Europe has health care, and I think everyone in America should have health care,” she said.

    With her performance, Clinton even swayed some voters previously leaning towards other candidates. Earlene Hawley, 78, of Waverly said she preferred John Edwards or Barack Obama before seeing Clinton in person. She saw Edwards speak in Waverly on Sunday, and was concerned about special interest money Clinton has accepted.

    “I was rather negative (on Clinton). I was concerned about her being beholden to the defense and health care industries,” she said. “But at this point, I think she’s got a mind of her own.”

  14. What is scary, is the thought of twenty somethings, as Obama surrogates creating policy and running the country.

    The Rev Moon performing mass weddings in front of the Lincoln Memorial led by the music of Donnie McClurkin. As Obama and the Evangelicals herd the first wave of detainees, the GLBT community, into mass concentration camps scattered in undisclosed locations throughout the country. Until the next wave of detainees, anyone refusing to pledge allegiance to the Grand Pubah, Obama, are ready for deployment to sec.44 holding pens as dissidant oath takers.

    All this, as the Bush/Cheney duo disappear into the ether of their newly built retirement facility located at the Baghdad Hilton (Embassy) operating their joint absentee management venture from the comfort and safety of their own living rooms.

    Mrs. S.

  15. Sullivan’s article does read like soft-core porn.

    Sullivan has a fetish for premature, unilateral surrender. He made this same pitch to the Gay Community (‘the fight is over, the Radical Right is ready to accept gays’) — then the Right tried to write anti-gay apartheid into the Constitution. His soft-core ‘post-Gay’ delusions about the Radical Right led to the disastrous gay marriage ‘kumbaya’ initiative — the blunder that led to anti-gay ‘pass laws’ in 41 states. Follow his advise and we’ll all end up on Guantanamo Bay.

    You’re dead-on. Sullivan is singing like a lovesick cow. Maybe we can send him an Obama blow-up doll.

  16. Molly I find the boomer argument phoney or misguided. Did liberal boomers cause the Reagam revolution? If they did it was by being steadfast supporters of civil rights. I’m young(ish) and I find Obama’s ageism unappealing.

  17. That’s why it so important that “we the people” get involve and push back on the “political hacks” on both side selling us this new paradigm that is as old as dirt.

    Do you think Sullivan would be a supporter if Obama wasn’t willing to sell his soul and grab all these new cons into his campaign or let the media twist and turn him into something he is not?

    Obama sold his soul and those around him have too. I’m watching Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning and the desperation is palpable every time Mika B and the rest of the folks talk about him. Knowing that her family is all wrapped up in his campaign…time and time again I see and hear this Clinton Hate over and over again.

    Like with the “gender card” crap, like Hillary manipulated this…hell no, MSNBC did and they’d paid a price for that crappy assault called a debate. So the media pundits hurt their “Lancelot” and is ready to dump Edwards as the “first line of defense” in breaching “Clintonlot” to slay the wicked dragon called Hillary.

    You’re so right, Sullivan and most of the press are having this love affair with Obama they think, they know.

  18. The reason Obama wants to dismiss the Boomers is because they can’t be fooled.

    Obama is the same package rewrapped and retrofitted into the new and shiny neoconic paradigm.

    It will be a cold day in hell, before we let the likes of Obama gets away with this swindle.

    Paula, after this week Hillary’s numbers will soar.. AND

    Canaan, you are too funny!

    Mrs. S.

  19. Look at it from another angle, and I challenge Sullivan to find fault with it.

    To all the girls and womenn in muslims and other repressed countries:…..We have the ability to do something….

    some of the women that hillary spoke to in Beijing would have kids d these women would understand the mother, fighter, provider, nurturer, in a women leader ……Empower the women and let these women talk to that young muslim boy in say..pakistan…

  20. “Andrew Sullivan, an unhappy alienated conservative gay Ripublican.” But wait, there’s more! He’s not even really culturally an American. He’s an expatriated Brit.

  21. Here’s an article in the Las Vega Review-Journal on Bill Clinton’s appearance there yesterday. Some interesting stuff here.

    Former President Clinton began and ended a speech in Las Vegas on Monday night pretending not to be married to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    “What I want you to know is, if she asked me to do this and we’d never been married, I would be here tonight,” Clinton told a cheering crowd at the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy on West Lake Mead Boulevard.

    And again at the end of the speech: “I’d be here if we weren’t married, and I hope you will all be there in January 2009 to celebrate a new day for America.”

    Joking that he felt like “an old horse that has won a lot of races, and every two years they take me out of the stable to see if I can still run,” Bill Clinton said he wanted to make a substantive, positive case for his wife without disparaging the other candidates.

    “In the 40 years that I have been voting, when I vote for her next year, she is the best qualified, best suited nonincumbent I have ever voted for,” the former president said in a campaign stop for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

    “I didn’t mind them jumping all over Hillary,” he said, referring to the Democratic debate last week that amounted to a match between her and the rest of the field. “She said, ‘When a lady gets to be 60, it’s nice to have all these boys paying attention to you.’ … She answered the charges, but she didn’t say anything bad back, and I like that too.”

    More than 3,000 people came to hear the former president speak at the free event, according to the campaign. Andre Agassi, who created the charter school for underprivileged kids, introduced Clinton, but a spokesman said the tennis great, who is active in Democratic politics, has not endorsed a presidential candidate.

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced Monday that she has, however, been endorsed by longtime Strip headliners Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn; former Clark County Manager Thom Reilly, now a Harrah’s executive; and Las Vegas Constable Robert “Bobby G” Gronauer.

    Before his speech at the Agassi school, Bill Clinton made a surprise visit to a contingent of Culinary union members engaged in negotiations, then gave a speech at a national postal workers’ union convention at the Las Vegas Hilton.

    In both speeches, each about 40 minutes, Clinton set out what he said are the three major problems facing America and the world. The union speech was lighter on references to Hillary Clinton, but both made the same basic points in the former president’s laid-back style. Jokes about getting older were interspersed with policy details.

    The three problems, Clinton said, are inequality in income, health care and education; global warming; and what he termed both terrorism and “identity conflicts.”

    “Our common humanity is more important than our interesting differences,” he said. “But just a few people who disagree with that can do a whole lot of damage.”

    Al-Qaida, he said, represents “the extreme example of identity: I’m right, you’re wrong; you disagree with me, you ought to die.”

    Any shot at the current president is an automatic applause line with a Democratic audience. But rather than taking the easy ovation, Clinton gently deflected an audience member’s suggestion that President Bush be included in his list of global problems.

    “Yeah, Bush and Cheney,” he said. “I could sit here all night and make you laugh and cry and stand up and cheer talking about the president and the vice president. But the country is over that. Let’s get the show on the road again.”

    He referred self-deprecatingly to his role in the campaign, telling the local audience, “I love being Hillary’s surrogate,” while at the union speech he praised an audience member’s “Bill Clinton for First Lady” T-shirt.

    Hillary, he said, would be the president most able to quickly restore America’s international standing and strengthen a beleaguered military. She would be able to work with Republicans to get things done, he said, and has a long record of working on health care and education issues.

    And, he said, “you ought to be for her because she can win.” Obliquely addressing the oft-repeated notion that Hillary is too divisive to win a general election, Clinton told of “old redneck guys” in upstate New York who never thought they’d support a Democrat but have been converted by Hillary’s work on their behalf.

    A college friend who doesn’t always support Democrats, Clinton said, wants to personally campaign for Hillary because “he said, I’m sick and tired of what they say about her, all this criticism. They don’t know her. I never met a single person who knew her that did not like her and respect her.'”

    In both speeches Clinton told listeners to brace for a Republican smear campaign, warning the local crowd of the “reverse plastic surgery” that her opponents would attempt to do.

    With the union audience, he was more explicit, referring to the Swift Boat Veterans ads opposing Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and an ad that helped depose veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland from the Senate in Georgia by portraying him alongside Saddam Hussein.

    “Why am I saying this?” he said. “Because I had a feeling at the end of the last debate that we’re going to get into cutesy land again.”

    Hillary is still taking heat for not giving a straightforward answer to a question about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. Her Democratic opponents have accused her of not wanting to take a stand that could hurt her in the general election, and Clinton essentially said that was the case.

    Such material, Clinton said, would be used by Republicans to “make an ad that says Democrats are against the rule of law.” He added, “I think it’s fine to discuss illegal immigration, but not in 30 seconds, yes, no, raise your hand.”

    Las Vegas resident Dasya Duckworth, 33, said Clinton’s speech won her over. Coming into the event at the Agassi school, she “was 65 percent sure” she would support Hillary, “and now I know I do.”

    Duckworth said she was tiring of all the back-and-forth of this seemingly endless campaign and wished the election could come sooner.

    Another audience member, Ydoleena Yturralde, 28, liked that Clinton had concrete things to say about Hillary’s candidacy. “He didn’t just say, ‘Vote for my wife, you should support me because I was there,'” she said. “He actually had significant reasons.

    Yturralde works for Las Vegas City Councilman Ricki Barlow, a Hillary supporter, but said she was there of her own accord. “I don’t support her because Ricki does,” she said. “I support her because I’m a single mom and I believe in her.”

  22. Hey y’all, Has good ole andrew made a statement about obama’s south carolina goodtime gay bashin’ gospel tour or did he choose to overlook that? I can’t remember. mollyj

  23. mj: Sullivan is a naturalized American. He lives in Adams-Morgan in the District of Columbia. I saw him in 2000 and 2004 agonize about casting a vote for George W. Bush. My own advice to him was go ahead and vote for the bastard six or seven times, if you want: it won’t affect the District’s electoral vote one iota. Bush got nine percent here in 2000 and nine percent here in 2004.

  24. More bad news: we’ve now lost Borat.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071106/people_nm/borat_dc;_ylt=Ammss8i.vt6qWH5ksKPIA8dxFb8C

    Q: Who do you favor for President in the United States?

    A: “I cannot believe that it possible a woman can become Premier of US and A – in Kazakhstan, we say that to give a woman power, is like to give a monkey a gun – very dangerous. We do not give monkeys guns any more in Kazakhstan ever since the Astana Zoo massacre of 2003 when Torkin the orang-utan shoot 17 schoolchildrens. I personal would like the basketball player, Barak Obamas to be Premier.”

  25. mj,

    Right now, it’s all background noise. After another two weeks and another batch of polls, pundits will claim a Hillary come-back… LOL. Dumb & Dumber.

  26. I’m loving how hard Hillary is working for us.
    Bill Nelson and Hillary Clinton team up
    Not on the campaign trail, but to offer the Senate version of a fast-moving House bill that would create a national catastrophe insurance fund.

    A press release from the Florida Democrat and the New York state Democrat says the two senators have introduced the “Homeowners Defense Act of 2007” which they call an “innovative proposal” to pool and diversify catastrophic risk in hopes of pulling down the cost of insurance for homeowners.

    The bill is the Senate companion to the House bill which is due to be debated on the House floor Wednesday. That bill is being pushed by Reps. Ron Klein, D-Fort Lauderdale and Tim Mahoney, D-Palm Beach Gardens.

    http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2007/11/bill-nelson-and.html

  27. Yeah, Kostner, I agree. Voters may have had some doubt because of the media pile on. But then they will look around at the alternative, and come on home.

  28. mj,

    I don’t even think its’ ‘some doubt’. This is simply the flaws of polling metholody. Polls can easily show huge swing when there’s a media feeding frenzy even the fundamentals of a race have not changed at all. I guess it’s just the measurement of intensity…

    Take Kerry & Bush debate for example. Before debate and after GOP convention, Bush had a double-digit lead in a Newsweek poll, after that, they pulled even or ahead of him in some polls..

    I just don’t believe Bush ever had such a big lead, I also don’t believe Kerry was ever ahead.

    It’s simply the flaw of polling metholody. IMHO, Clinton has never had 30 points lead, the extra 10 points was a result of good media coverage of her healthcare roll-out. She probably has a 20 points lead nation wide… Right now it’s back to nomral.

  29. See, I think she’ll end up with a 30 point lead again in the next month. I think she’s more like Gore, she has about 40% committed to her now, she’ll end up with 50-60. Gore had about 63% support from Dems in the primaries.

  30. Kostner, I meant doubt among supporters she had drawn in recently, more soft supporters. Not her core supporters, I think that soft support will come back.

  31. love the new marist poll. not only a good national primary numbers for hillary but a 10 point lead in the geneal aganst guliani. so much for the unelectable bs.

  32. A Back-Handed Compliment For Clinton
    Hillary Clinton’s scars from her White House days aren’t just from not passing universal health care. She was asked in an interview by the Globe Gazette, the paper in Mason City, Iowa where she had just spoken, “what’s the thing about you that you think is the most misunderstood because of the image people have of you?”

    According to the story, she did not hesitate before replying:

    “The most common thing I hear from people who meet me is, ‘Say, you’re really nice.’ It’s a back-handed compliment, I know, but I’ll take it,” she told the paper.

    Asked about her musical talents compared to her husband’s saxophone playing, she was similarly modest.

    “I’m a very bad piano player. I took lessons for six years and it’s just one of those things that, well, I wouldn’t want to do it in public.

    And then, perhaps referencing her less than pitch-perfect rendition of the national anthem, she added:
    “Singing is another thing I should always do behind closed doors.”

    –Perry Bacon Jr.

  33. Ten minutes with Hillary

    By JOHN SKIPPER, john.skipper@globegazette.com

    Ten minutes with Hillary Rodham Clinton, former first lady, current candidate for president and someone who seems to be either loved and admired or hated and feared by most Americans. There’s no in-between.

    Ten minutes to break through the invisible shield that all politicians have, the one that separates the well-scripted public persona from the real deal.

    Time for one or two questions. That’s it. I could feel the guy sitting next to us looking at his watch.

    “We know your husband plays the saxophone,” I said. “What do you play?”

    Clinton, sitting across a table from me dressed in dark green pant suit, laughed heartily and said, “I’m a very bad piano player. I took lessons for six years and it’s just one of those things that, well, I wouldn’t want to do it in public.

    “Singing is another thing I should always do behind closed doors,” she said, and she laughed again.

    As we talked, she was animated, waving her hands to emphasize points and always making good eye contact.

    We got around to talking politics and how tiring it must be to make three or four stops a day, every day, along the campaign trail.

    “I’ve always had a lot of stamina,” she said. “You have to. But you also have to love what you’re doing or you wouldn’t be able to keep up the pace.”

    She said Iowa and New Hampshire, sites of the first two tests for presidential candidates, are far different from one another in terms of where people live and how they make their living — but concerns of the voters are much the same.

    “You might be surprised to know that college affordability is something I hear often wherever I go,” she said.

    “And, of course, the war in Iraq.”

    I told her one of my challenges with politicians was to ask them a question they hadn’t been asked a thousand times before and that I was going to try it with her.

    Her eyes said, “Fire away.”

    I asked, “What’s the thing about you that you think is the most misunderstood because of the image people have of you?”

    She did not hesitate.

    “The most common thing I hear from people who meet me is, ‘Say, you’re really nice.’ It’s a back-handed compliment, I know, but I’ll take it,” she said, and she laughed again.

    Clinton said she knows she’s not the most popular person in some circles but said it comes with the territory in public life.

    “It’s the price you pay,” she said.

    And her favorite thing about campaigning in Iowa?

    Again Clinton did not hesitate.

    “Kitchen table politics,” she said.

  34. Does anybody know if Obama/edwards/biden withdrew from the FL primary?
    They took their names off the MI vote as far as I know…..just curious to see if their “integrity” and intention is the same….

  35. Hey all. I just got back from the Amana event. It was freezing cold. We stood outside directing parking and we got in a tizzy with these crazy prolifers that had a van with slogans and nasty pictures all over it. They were men of course. One said abortion causes breast cancer….yeah that is medically provable to be false. Anyhow, the good stuff. Hillary was awesome. She was sick with a cold, and a sore throat, but she gave an amazing speech. When she was talking about healthcare, her voice had a problem and she uttered, “I need healthcare”. (: It was awesome. She gave possibly the best answer from a democratic politician on illegal immigration ever. We had a massive turnout and I froze to death…almost, but I would for HRC (:

  36. Thanks for the update, Celiff. I always enjoy your reports from the field! Sorry our girl is comin’ down with a cold. I hope the stops in Iowa have been successful and from the sounds of it she’s just doin’ a great job. mollyj

  37. Dodd is here in Iowa City tonight. I was walking by the library downtown and he was in a window and I just kept walking (he had a measley crowd).

  38. source: http://www.clickforhillary.com
    Are Edwards and Obama running a joint campaign? The more political pundits look at it, the more real it seems. Firstly, I would like to point out that except Hillary Clinton, no other candidate is taking some time out of their busy campaigns to talk about their policies rather than cheap attacks against one another which only hurts democratic party as a whole. While Edwards is more hawkish and has taken lead with regard to his attacks on Hillary, Obama is taking a more of a wait and watch approach parroting same lines Edwards says, thereby looking like a dove.
    strategy evolving out of the two campaigns is to say the least interesting. But the question remains to be seen if combined forces of Edwards and Obama are strong enough to bring the front runner down.

    Political pundits are seeing a trend which makes it seem a real possibility. Edwards has given up on talking about his programs or what he stands up for. His bottomline strategy appears simple, if he can be the guy who keeps up the attacks, even though he might lose just a minimal number of supporters (averaging 2% by conservative estimates), he can have a big drawdown on Hillarys lead over Obama. After he ensures enough drawdown, he would expect to join Obama for presidential debate on a vice president ticket yet again and save for presidency for a later day.

    It needs to be seen though, if American people especially Iowans can see through the strategy. If they dont see it, then there is a high possibility that Oba
    ma will take it all. Edwards fate would then depend on weather Obama selects him to be a running mate, however experts agree that picking Edwards as running mate would substantially increase Obama’s appeal to democrats, especially in the south.

    Which brings me back to the fundamental question. Is this a real possibility. If it is a possibility, the how can clinton supporters negate it. The politics of pile on are real, be it because of her being front runner or because of her being a woman or both. Either case, the holy than thou politics of “hope” that Obama and Edwards had promised to offer seems to be more and more disingenuous, unless you are one of his young campaign supporter, who really believes in his rhetoric, rather than his record. Obama’s pure self obsession and his references to parading himself in same light of MLK is ludicrous and I shall reserve my comment on this topic for another day.

  39. Y’all, I just got through watchin’ Dobbs and then Mathews and I cannot do this every night. But I basically came to the same conclusion as the poster above. I do think that Edwards is doin’ Obama’s “dirty work”. This would be typical, of course, because Obama seems to lack originality even when it comes to criticizing others. He even pointed to “media hype” when asked that initial question in the debate which gave him the open opportunity to say what ever he wanted about our girl. mollyj

  40. Obama continues attacking:

    “Sen. Obama is well aware that the former president was saying that the Republicans will do anything to play politics with a serious issue,” spokesman Phil Singer said in an email. “So instead of launching another attack against the Clintons, Sen. Obama should join with them in working to prevent all Democrats from being attacked by the GOP.”

    UPDATE: Obama spokesman Bill Burton points to an interview Clinton gave to CNN today in which she would not answer whether she thinks illegal immigrants should be granted licenses. “The only person playing politics today is Senator Clinton,” Burton said. “It’s absurd to compare a simple yes or no question about immigration that Senator Clinton still won’t answer seven days after the debate to the despicable Republican attacks against John Kerry and Max Cleland’s patriotism. Senator Obama believes that to truly stand up to the Republican attack machine, we have to be honest and straightforward about where we stand on the major issues facing America.”

  41. The problem is Obama is not bright enough to understand that complex issues can’t be reduced to simple yes or no answers. Ditto for his advisors.

  42. mj,

    I actually like President Clinton’s ‘swiftboating’ charge.

    Democratic primary voters simply love Clinton, they don’t necessarily take every word of his seriously. They may think he can get a bit crazy from time to time, but his counter-attack usually does not turn off primary voters.

    This drives Obama/Edwards/Dodd nuts and force them to respond and to be on defense while at the same time, Hillary is sticking to her positive agenda…

    I like it.

  43. Oh, I wasn’t complaining about Bill. I don’t think anyone would say he is going crazy. I don’t follow there.

  44. Are you saying this is a winning diversion because Dem’s won’t like Obama going after Bill, and Hillary keeps getting to look ahead with her plans for the country?

  45. I think you are right Kostner. I was just thinking about it. Remember Penn’s memo. All the news coming out from the Obama/Edwards campaign is “Obama attacks” or “Edwards attacks”. They left a trail for Obama and he pick up the bread crumbs.

  46. mj,

    It’s a trap for Edwards/Obama. It’s a way to distract them from staying on message if they still have any message, force them to respond, to attack and to counter-attack. If this impression is sustained for the next two months, both of them are toast.

  47. hillfans off topic, but im folling some of the races around the country. beshear is wiing big in kentucky plus i heard in virginia the dems are posed to take over the state senate. man, i almost forgot how election day. just 2 months before iowa and nh, then super tuesday in feb. i cannot wait!!!! the wife and i voted this morning. the optical scan was really easy. i voted dem line all the way except some council races i did not vote at all. was not following that closely. anyway it was easy. the lever machines are the thing of the past here.

  48. Obama and Edwards gone all in. They’ve pushed their entire stack of chips to the center of the table and placed the bet on ATTACK.

    I figure they’ve got two, maybe three, weeks to make it work. If they haven’t caught and passed Hillary by Thanksgiving or sooner, they are dead and finished. Kaput.

    Just imagine how stale and pathetic their attacks will sound in the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

  49. hwc,

    I think the trick is to lump Edwards/Obama together. We can not let Obama off the hook and make him look ‘nicer’ than Edwards…

  50. I think the more likely goal is to take out Clinton and then go after Obama. I could be wrong. There may be a grudge factor at work as well with him. He’s worked for this a long time, and he may be furious that Hillary has swept in and swept him away.

    Obama is who did him in. If Obama hadn’t gotten in the race and sucked up all the media attention and money, Edwards would have had a better shot, although I think this was simply Hillary’s time. She’s been working up towards this for decades, and I think the moment is hers.

  51. Edwards is a sad little man. He was on campus monday for a “major foreign policy speech”, or deperate Hillary-bashing as I like to call it. He had a tiny crowd. I had a good laugh when I heard this. Although I will say, we need to make sure he gets ahead of obama to keep him down. Edwards wins Iowa=No big deal.

  52. Well, Celiff, I’m still hoping Hillary wins Iowa. I mean, she’s really talking issues with Iowans. I know Iowans are strongly anti-war, but I hope they will see she will end the war.

  53. Oh yeah, I know. She did very well today. She’s anywhere from 4-10 points ahead here and I think she will win. I am just saying Obama must be #3 or less, must be.

  54. mj,

    I think there is an emerging trend in Iowa. Clinton is being nice to Biden & Richardson and vice versa. I think Biden & Richardson just cant stand O-bomb and Edwards….

    It’s a huge mistake for Obama/Edwards to lump together and alienate both Biden & Richardson. Remember the second choice of Biden & Richardson supporters is key since they won’t meet 15 threshold in most precincts…

  55. As far as we are concerned edwards is worthless piece of shit. He is simply an attack dog who has no scope whatsoever to win the nomination.

    Kostner,
    You are absolutely right in linking Obama with Edwards. They both are absolutely the same – hopeless freaks!

  56. Celiff, Hillary’s campaign is kicking off a food drive in Iowa Saturday. Then she will volunteer to work with the homeless the week of Thanksgiving in Iowa. Do you know anything about this?

  57. I haven’t heard about this drive. I do know something about the JJDinner this weekend, and let’s just say it will make us all smile. I would spill it, but this is afterall the forbidden zone. You will know by that night or the next day (:

  58. admin,

    Thanks for the loose lips rule reminder. I want to laugh off Edwards’ latest dumb attack of Hillary on foreign policy…

    I’m puzzled they still haven’t figured out the loopholes…

  59. Well, kostner, if you think Hillary is going to go neocon in office you are sorely mistaken. I think you are looking for something that isn’t there.

  60. Glad the dem won in the KY gov. race. He spread a very homophobic phone message which did not effect it. That’s a good sign.

  61. Kostner..

    Play the Swiftboat card.. keep the pressure up.

    Asking doesn’t BO understand the question?

    Mrs. S.

  62. I hope Hill’s staff reads this. I do not think she should take on Edwards. He’s starting to seem depraved. If she keeps visiting folks in Iowa and rolling out her great agenda, just like people who believed the right wing frames about her, people who have been taken in by Edwards will see the real her, and they’ll like her, and it will just make them like Edwards all the less.

  63. Clearly, we are all hungry for Iowa news because it is the only state other than candidates’ home states where Hillary is under 40+%. And because we can put an end to the ludicrous campaigns of O & E and shut them up hopefuly.

    I do not, however, subscribe to the notion that if Iowa is not a win for Hill, that she will instantly lose about 1/3 to1/2 of her supportres in all the other states. Nevertheless, how long will Iowa take to reject the vague and false attacks on Hill? Thanks for all the reports, celiff. I look for your comments, first thing i the a.m. We are also an early caucus state, but absolutely nobody cares because Hill is doing very well here.

  64. Freckles, I agree completey. It’s exactly the opposite. She can stand a loss in Iowa, but if she wins in Iowa, she will win across the board.

  65. I can not believe what I just saw on taylor marsh’s site. This media attack is sexist. These hacks are unbelievable.

  66. “Edwards fate would then depend on weather Obama selects him to be a running mate, however experts agree that picking Edwards as running mate would substantially increase Obama’s appeal to democrats, especially in the south.”

    Why do the pundits keep spreading this crap. Edwards didn’t help Kerry southern strategy at all, in fact he hurt Kerry’s ticket. Edward couldn’t even win his own state.

    If he had won his state Kerry would be president.

    BTW, one of the sad things about the distraction O&E is doing is harming the democrat unity because I swear their supporter is down right suspect.

  67. i enjoyed the articule in the telegraph, where dick army says hillary will win, he also says she will get some of the religious rights vote, and she will get some conservatives…

    anyway, i wish we would stop giving ‘owronga’ bo, so much time, i’m over him. i’m more interested in what hillary plans to say, in the next debate, concerning all these ‘questions’ from the last debate…

    if she pulls this one out she doesnt need to think about bo…

    if the same thing happens, not good at all… and you know these old men are going to try and get first blood.

    in the last debate when it started and the camera first paned on hillary, she looked really tired, she wasnt smiling, she had bags under her eyes, and i had the impression, she had stayed up late studying…

    she wasnt herself, as in earlier debates…
    hillary needs to get her ‘GROOVE BACK”… she needs to laugh it all off, and not take it all so serious. she is the champ…

    she needs to laugh and say: ‘ let me answer this real slow’… or ‘ stop me if i’m going to fast’…

    you know, girl needs to get back on the saddle…

  68. For now, she needs to get over this cold before it develops into something more serious. She needs rest and food, plenty of food. We don’t need a martyr. We need her healthy and fit.

    Please rest a day or two. Nothing is worth compromising your health. She’s been very lucky so far. Her immune syaytem must be very strong. So, whatever has her down, is nothing to toy with.

    Mrs. S.

  69. united 12, I know Hillary will do very well in the next debate. As she told Candy Crowley, she’s well aware she wasn’t at her best last time. That absolutely won’t be the case this time. Count on it.

  70. “I’ve been hitting hard on Obama for the past two days.
    Any suggestion for tomorrow’s theme?”

    How about “The Piles”? Gomer Pile (Obama), Goober Pile (Edwards), Chester Pile (Biden) and Homer Pile (Dodd).

    Did you see “Saturday Night Fever”? Obama reminds me of Bobby C., that poor guy that followed around John Travolta’s gang and ended up falling off the Verrazano Bridge. He’s the follower that falls in with a bad crowd (Edwards and the rest of the ‘pile’) and goes around vandalizing and writing graffiti out of peer pressure. Not very presidential.

Comments are closed.