Go Obama – you are the next president

Hillary Clinton is On the Ropes (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News)
"The nostalgia for the '90s, a move for a restoration of the Clinton
presidency, isn't a persuasive rationale. The flaw was on display in her
speech – surrounded by Bill and some of his old aides, she was a tableau of
the past, not the future."

"She needs to come out from behind Bubba and the barricades and the imperial
court of handlers who create a bubble."

Hillary and Bill Clinton's time in the White house was during a much
different, much easier time in our country's history than the next eight
years will be.

I think the voters realize that Hillary's claim to experience was that she
had only some experience and that it was during that much different, much
easier period.

It is not all that relevant to the difficult next eight years. Her time has
come and gone.

I think that voters are seeing Bill Clinton as someone who rode the wave,
not as someone who actively created the good times. The more I read and
think about Bill, the more I see him as someone who wasted a fabulous
opportunity to help the people of this country.

I think that is underlying Hillary's drop in the polls and the loss in Iowa.
If that is correct, I don't see how she can regain the lead without a very
negative attack on Obama. I think that having Bill on the campaign trail
was the cause of her decline. It made her look like his puppet, reminded
people of Bill's failings to seize the fabulous opportunity, and reinforced
the opinion that she was of the past that was much different than the
present.

If this is correct, Bill's taking over her campaign in NH for the next few
days will only make matters worse for Hillary. Sharp attacks by both of
them against Obama will also reinforce the differences between the two
candidates. It appears that the Clintons have decided on an all or nothing
tactic to NH.
I encourage your reporters to check out this angle more fully and, if they
agree, to publish an article on this aspect of the race.

In addition, an article written about all of these "redemption" runs would probably convince us that voters should never vote for a presidential candidate who is related to a president or presidential candidate. I think with just my information it is fair to say that redemption runs lead to poor judgment in the political decisions of a campaign and in presidential decisions, clouding both. An experienced political writer or writers would be able to fully research and present clearly the results of that research.

I think that Hillary Clinton would still be leading if Bill Clinton had been kept in the background. What I am seeing and what I believe the press is starting to report is that Hillary's race is all about Bill redeeming Bill and Bill's legacy and Hillary redeeming Bill, Bill's legacy, and Hillary's legacy. Obama and Edwards have been clearly stating for a long time that their presidential race is about America or about the middle class or about the other America, not about them. Hillary in NH is just starting to say that her race is not about her. But she just said that the race for her is very personal, suggesting policy but in reality much more telling.

What is happening to Sen. Obama is just what happened to President Clinton when he first ran for president.

I'm so extremely disappointed that it has made me change my mind. If they react to not getting their way now, how will they react IF Sen. Clinton becomes president and things do go their way?

Lenedone Wrote “Question about Obama’s electability. Which States do you think Obama will win in the General Elections?

Here is my analysis of why he will lose badly to the Republicans:

(1) The Republican nominee will be either, McCain, Romney, Julianni, or Huckabee. The Republican establishment will throw it’s full machinery behind whoever that nominee is.

(2) Next, they will make national security and terrorism the main issue in the debate.

(3) Then, they will define Obama based on his own record or lack thereof, as weak on national security, inexperienced and naïve. (Have we not seen this movie before)

(4) Next, they will do what the media and the democrats have not done, they will research everything he has ever done, and then the 527 groups will launch those famous “unaffiliated” Swift boat ads.

(e) They will attack him and define in the Southern and Mid Western States as a real threat to the future of our country and to our children. They will note how frequently he has abstained or failed to vote as a US and State Senator, and will claim he cannot be trusted to make the tough decisions. (did you not see the early signs of this last night in the Republican debate)

(f) They will say that in an unstable economic climate do you want to risk your family’s bread and butter with this rookie.

(g) Then they will ask him, what has he ever done? (compared to the republican nominee the answer will be “not much really”)

(h) The republican 527 groups will also do what has not been by his fellow democrats, that is, they will question his temperament, and ask questions about his drug use, and insinuate that perhaps he still has a problem in that area.

(i) These 527 will unearth allege drug users and dealers who will say that they shared a cocaine session with him then, and that they know someone who sold him crack cocaine last year. There will be a 1,000 stories like these. These fellows don’t play nice.

(j) The Republican nominee will stay above the fray and say that they oppose these 527 groups and want them banned, but unfortunately, like John Edwards said recently about 527 running ads. against Obama on his behalf, it is illegal to contact them in any way. Remember Bush and Kerry, and Bush’s father against Dukasus?

(k) For whom did the country vote in the last elections when Americans were dying in Iraq and Bush was seen as running a poorly executed war? Did they vote for the war hero who promised change and hope, or did they vote for the man whose military service records seemed to have mystic properties, and who got us into Iraq in the first place?

(l) Many of those who feel inspired today by Obama will cringe from him after the republicans 527 begin their attack, and other will simply no longer support him based on the “real” Obama as defined by these 527s.

(m) Given all of the above, Obama will lose every Southern State, including Florida, he will also lose Ohio, and then he will have to really fight to win all the states that Kerry one in the last elections. I can assure you he will not win them all when the republicans are through with him.

(n) So tell me dear chap, how will Obama win the 270 electoral votes he needs to win the presidency? He can not!”

Lastly, I am against Clinton. I cannot bear to hear her pontificating as president for the next 4 years! She is calculating and too ambitous for her own good. Had she been taking care of her husband when he was in office, I believe it's a very good bet that that scandal would not have occurred.

Who the hell is Obama and where did he just appeared in the media?
I never heard of him until 8 months ago when he started to campaign begging for votes!
This guy does not have anything solid on his resume, except his good looks.
Thank you, but we've already got Paris Hilton, even though she is not that good looking.

New York State- WAKE UP! We need a real president such as Hillary not a celebrity like
Obama.

Ok, the Democrats…

Hillary :
She talk's alot about experience, but…what experience? Being a shady lawyer in a backwater state with a closet full of skeletons. Or maybe being the first lady now qualifies one to be the most powerful person in the world? NOT!

Obama :
He's always talking about change, the reason? Because he is a junior senetor who has very little experience in anything except local issues. So…presto "Change". This will all wear off soon. We have 11 Months to go and his message will wear thin early in that time.

Edwards :
He's just too angry, probably because he's been doing this for a few go rounds now and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

And the Republicans…

Huckabee :
Well gee wiz let me think of something. Christianity is his only message that resonates with anyone. So if that's your thing, he's your man. He's just not a candidate that can win…the nomination or the election.

Thompson :
Represents the current administration too much. You get the feeling he's getting his advice from Dick Cheney.

McCain :
He is a patriot, but thats sort of where it ends. Thanks for your service John! But It's just not gonna happen, whether you dilute the process by winning New Hampshire or not.

Ron Paul :
Great message. Getting back to the constitution, great. But many of his other ideas are just…out there. And he suffers an unelectable personality issue. Again, he's not going to win.

Giuliani :
Good man, was in the right place to handle the 9/11 crisis, but couldn't beat Hillary in a Senate race, why does he think he'll be President? Sorry Rudy.

So…Governor Romney. :
A guy who's a family man, finished at the top of his class, headed up an Olympics, has done great in business and knows how to run a government! None of the other candidates come close in terms of qualifications! Take a closer look for yourself and get behind the right person for the job!

I think its ridiculous and an insult to the voters to make this about "likeability" and being "new". The next president will be a new president, we get it already. She needs to stay focused on how she can better affect change with a jacked up deficit and a contentious partisan Congress.

I think Hillary still has the best chance to get it done, but its unsettling to see her become unglued and rattled so quickly.

WE WOULD HAVE A HILLBILLY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IF SHE IS ELECTED.

Oh wait, she only got elected once to the US Senate for NY

January 7, 2008 11:58 pm ET

Is anyone paying attention to what a double standard has been set surrounding Hillary? If she is confident, assertive, makes an argument and defends her position, she's seen as being cold, unfriendly and "unlikeable." If she lets her guard down showing more emotion then she's seen as insincere, weak or incapable. It seems that no matter which side she shows, candidates, voters and the media are taking issue with it.

The other candidates in the race (both Democrats or Republicans) are supposed to be strong and aggressive and if they happen to show some emotion, then they are seen as being "more human" and "more likeable."

How is this viewpoint fair and in the best interest of our political system?

January 7, 2008 11:58 pm ET

Is anyone paying attention to what a double standard has been set surrounding Hillary? If she is confident, assertive, makes an argument and defends her position, she's seen as being cold, unfriendly and "unlikeable." If she lets her guard down showing more emotion then she's seen as insincere, weak or incapable. It seems that no matter which side she shows, candidates, voters and the media are taking issue with it.

The other candidates in the race (both Democrats or Republicans) are supposed to be strong and aggressive and if they happen to show some emotion, then they are seen as being "more human" and "more likeable."

How is this viewpoint fair and in the best interest of our political system?

She has the leadship ability and will achieve what she said! Not only an excellent orator who promises anything only for cheating voters to support for him. Unfortunately, he never considered whether he can keep his promise or how to realize what’s he said. If a person says he can do anything, we should doubt his honesty, such as Obama! Change is good, but can change to a positive or negative direction! We should reminder 8 years ago, Bush also said changes.

Let’s support Hillary, because we love this country! We will not allow this country suffer another disastrous presidential term! I find the similarity between Barack Obama and George W. Bush!

America, I thought we were past that. I knew we were past most racist views but you still can't deal with a woman in a an authoritive position. Wow.

The media, aren't you tired of spinning…
whew

When its printed that our country will be destroyed from within – and all you Clinton haters are working against Hillary (no woman should ever be more successful than a man as history has shown) you will take a chance on someone who has ties to the Muslim culture – because he talks a good talk.

He's nice to look at, but so is George Clooney. Would we all vote for George Clooney to be President – because he is articulate and handsome. Maybe we should think about Chuck Norris who is Huckabee's recent side kick – everyone loves his movies.

Get a grip on yourselves because I hope that whoever does become President, the first thing she should do is look for some decent, honest, nonpartisan journalists and reporters and news people – who just report the news, and not their own opinions because they're looking to make a star out of an unknown.

You've printed and admired every sarcastic word the current administration has spewed into your face, dastardly, evil inuendos possible, and the actions of all the Republicans who have been arrested, some indicted and jailed for their scurrilous activities, most liberated in the courts or by the President, and yet, you turn around and continue to beat up on the Clintons. Maybe some day we can all be privy to having your lives laid out on the internet, every minute detail about your personal life – so grossly stated as was done to Bill Clinton while you all sat back and gloated............................I'll wait.

Be careful what you wish for – you may just get it! I may be 75, but I still have my senses.

For all of us who can't quite make up our minds, it is unfortunate if the tide turns due to a push by the media.

The problem for her is that she lacks the leader's charisma that Obama has. Unfortunately for Hillary, the very same weapon that brought Bill Clinton to the WH, is making the difference in favor of Obama today.