Within moments of Barack Obama's victory speech in Iowa, the conventional wisdom dramatically changed. Much like John Kerry, Obama was expected to take an enormous bounce with him to New Hampshire, defeating Clinton there before truly running the table. The pundits expected it; the polls predicted it; but the win never came. Hillary Clinton had marched to an extraordinary comeback that night, besting Obama by three percent.
Even those who had envisioned an Obama victory from early on were discouraged. The expectation was that, despite his low national numbers, his win in Iowa would propel him to sequential wins, ending with victory on February 5th. This was certainly the core strategy of the Obama campaign. But having lost New Hampshire, and days later, Nevada, it looked as though Obama's chances were slipping away, inexorably.
But on the other side of an exceptional month for Obama, one thing has become clear: the loss in New Hampshire proved ironically valuable.
Obama has since become a stronger candidate. After Iowa, he quipped at a massive rally, "You're the wave, and I'm riding it," believing, like many, that the race would soon be over. After New Hampshire's painful upset, however, he recognized that he must work hard for each vote, not allowing the media hype to lift him into the clouds.
He built large, well-financed organizations in states that would have been ignored had the campaign calendar not been extended. These include Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Louisiana, among others, all sure-fire battleground states for the general election. Having proven that organizing on the streets of Chicago could translate on a national stage, Obama has been able to mobilize voters in record-breaking form. Those organizations will be crucial come November.
The extension of the campaign season gave Obama the opportunity to meet far more voters and hold far more rallies, helping him consolidate support around the country. In every state he's campaigned in, his numbers have risen dramatically, proof that the more voters get to know him, the more they approve.
Obama was also given the time to truly breathe in his new status, to reconcile the possibility that the presidency is actually within reach. After South Carolina, he became calm and confident, at ease with himself and the tasks ahead. Each of his one-on-one debate performances showcased a candidate who had learned a great deal, able to float between policy and poetry with grace and precision. And when treated as a front runner by both Clinton and McCain, Obama has been strong and agile, attacking aggressively without ceding the high ground.
Tactically, Obama has proven himself a worthy nominee to voters judging his electability. His team has crafted a near-flawless campaign plan, with a message that Obama delivers with consistent discipline. He is clearly a strong fighter, able to verbally strike when necessary, but always within the context of his broader appeal. He has built an unmatched fundraising operation, having shattered all records with a small donor base, one million strong. Perhaps, most importantly, he has demonstrated an ability to mobilize voters in a way no independent effort could match. In a year that could require unprecedented Democratic turnout, Barack Obama can deliver.
Beyond tactics, Obama has had the time to convince voters of his readiness to lead. After winning Iowa, voters nationally continued to view Clinton as the more substantive and capable candidate. By wide margins, she was considered a better potential commander-in-chief. Had Obama's momentum carried him to victory in New Hampshire, with the collapse of the Clinton campaign to follow, he would have inherited a party not yet ready to believe.
But through intensive scrutiny, top notch debate performances, countless stadium-sized rallies, and many millions of dollars in advertising, Obama has turned the tide. Recent exit polls have shown that he is now viewed as equally capable of commanding the military, and equally qualified to be president.
Having weathered the storm, Obama has emerged in a much stronger position for the general election. He has become a wiser candidate and has convinced his party that he is ready. Still, he's taking no chances. At a press conference on Thursday, in the midst of outspending and out-organizing the Clinton campaign in Texas and Ohio, he recounted the lesson he has learned above all:
"Remember New Hampshire."
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
F.Y.I. Obama has been leading in pledged delegates in every primary race. You should do your home work. Democratic primaries are not winner take all. Hillary has NEVER been ahead in the pledged delegate count.
I would ask you to "Remember New Hampshire", because Tuesday is going to feel like New Hampshire all over again!
something tells me your name is well-chosen. i'm in ohio, and the tide has turned for obama. come tuesday, it's finally buh-bye time for hillary.
Fired up. Ready to go!
Can you imagine Hillary screaming at Obama after she sent mailers that were complete lies.
Trying to Heal a Rift in New Hampshire
By Alec MacGillis
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html
Three New Hampshire Democratic leaders who signed a letter two days before the state's primary at the request of Hillary Clinton's campaign, attacking Barack Obama as soft in his support for abortion rights,are asking Obama supporters in the state to put the rifts of the primary campaign behind them and praising Obama for being "strongly pro-choice."
Of the two dozen prominent women who signed the critical letter, e-mailed by the Clinton campaign to a list of supporters and undecided voters, three have now signed their names to another missive asking abortion rights supporters in the state to come together and take comfort in the fact that all of the Democratic presidential candidates are firmly pro-choice.
One of the three Clinton supporters went even further, saying in an interview
Thursday that signing the letter attacking Obama was a "mistake."
Katie Wheeler, a former state senator, said the Clinton campaign had not given her background information about Obama's record on abortion rights when it asked her to sign the letter calling him weak on the issue, and said that, as a result, she did not understand the context of the votes that the letter was attacking him over.
"It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice," said Wheeler, a founder of the New Hampshire chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."
The new letter and comments by Wheeler are the latest twist in a back-and-forth that Obama supporters believe did real damage to his campaign in the final days in New Hampshire, though Wheeler said she doubted that the e-mail had that much impact in the final day of the race. "I don't think this one thing would sway people," she said.
Nonetheless, the conflict over Obama's "present" -- rather than "yes" or "no" -- votes on abortion bills in the Illinois legislature has left behind such deep divisions among the state's Democrats that some Obama supporters vowed, in the wake of her come-from-behind N.H. win, not to vote for Clinton, should she become the party's nominee.
The e-mail arrived in selected New Hampshire in-boxes shortly after a postcard from the Clinton campaign that attacked Obama for being "unwilling to take a stand for choice" was mailed to homes.
"The difference between Hillary's repeatedly standing up strong on choice and Obama's unwillingness to vote 'yes' or 'no' is a clear contrast, and we believe the voters in New Hampshire deserve to know this difference," the e-mail stated. "We support Hillary Clinton because she never ducked when choice was at stake."
The Clinton campaign has made the same charge repeatedly over the past year, including a couple weeks before the Iowa caucus.
The Obama campaign had rebuffed it by invoking statements by an Illinois Planned Parenthood official, who said the "present" votes were part of a deliberate strategy to protect other pro-choice legislators, other than Obama, in vulnerable districts.
But the fresh New Hampshire attack arrived much closer to election day, leaving the Obama forces scrambling to respond by rushing out an automated phone call on the evening of Jan. 6, two days before the vote.
On primary day, Clinton won by two percentage points after trailing in the final polls by as much as 10 percent, thanks in large part to a last-minute surge in support from women.
The new e-mail seeking conciliation was signed by five prominent Clinton supporters in the state -- including Wheeler, House Speaker Terie Norelli, and state senator Maggie Hassan, the three who signed the initial attack. The letter, which was also signed by several Obama supporters, states that "many of us...engaged in good faith in the rough and tumble of competitive politics. In doing so, feelings have been bruised and some deep anger has emerged."
It goes on to downplay the dispute created by the initial e-mail as "nuanced differences" which should not be allowed to "drain our energy." And it concludes, in seeming contrast to the initial attack on Obama's abortion rights credentials, that "The good news is that all of the candidates within the Democratic Party are strongly pro-choice and we should be proud that our efforts have led to such a solid field. "
In the interview Thursday, Wheeler said she was not aware of the explanation of Obama's present votes by Illinois Planned Parenthood when she agreed to sign the critical letter at the request of Clinton officials in New Hampshire.
"What we didn't know was the circumstances of those Illinois pro-choice votes. Since then we've learned that it was the plan of the pro-choice community in Illinois. These were subtleties that those of us in the Clinton campaign here didn't understand," she said. "I for one did not understand the present votes....I did not know the full context."
Wheeler said she regretted the ill will it had caused. "I'm sorry there was a misunderstanding, and we're hoping to heal divisions that still may exist," she said. "It's a real pity it got so intense, but that's what happens in that close an election.
People get impassioned and lose their judgment..It was the heat of emotions in a tight election where everybody cared deeply about the issue, and many of us over-reacted."
The other two Clinton supporters who signed both the critical e-mail and the conciliatory one stood more strongly by the initial one. Sen. Hassan said she, too, was unaware of the Illinois Planned Parenthood defense of Obama at the time she signed the critical letter, that she had only been told by the Clinton campaign that the Illinois chapter of
NOW had cited concerns about Obama's present votes. She said it was wrong for anyone to suggest that Obama was not pro-choice,
and that she was sorry about the upset that the letter had caused.
But Hassan stood by what she said was the main point of the initial e-mail, that Clinton was the most staunchly pro-choice Democrat. "All of the leading Democratic candidates are strongly pro-choice but I think Hillary's record is unparalleled.
I stand by what I signed before the election and don't think it's inconsistent with" the new e-mail stating that Obama is strongly pro-choice, Hassan said. "Everybody's going to interpret these letters and e-mails as they want to."
Norelli, the House Speaker, said she had been aware of the Planned Parenthood defense of Obama's Illinois record at the time she signed the critical e-mail but was comfortable with the letter's attack against Obama nonetheless, noting the concerns of the Illinois NOW chapter had raised about the votes. "I would say that the record is clear that he voted 'present' seven times. Planned Parenthood, some of the time at least, says it was part of a deal.
Well, NOW says that in 2004, they chose not to endorse Sen. Obama" because of the votes, Norelli said. "I would say every voter needs to have all the factual information and each individual needs to make their own decision."
As for the new conciliatory note, Norelli said there was no inconsistency in calling Obama "strongly pro-choice" after attacking him on the present votes. "I would take any of the Democratic candidates on issues of choice over any of the Republican candidates.
But I would take Hillary Clinton and her leadership on choice over Senator Obama," she said. Norelli said the purpose of the latest e-mail was to help calm the ruffled feathers of the Obama supporters. We are working to heal any problems that there are among the Democrats and looking forward to working together closely," she said. "They have time to get over it."
One of the Obama supporters who signed the reconciliation e-mail, Mary Rauh, said she did so because she was very worried that the rift created by the primary could seriously harm abortion rights efforts in the state if it was left unadressed.
But she said that she remained aggrieved by the Clinton attack and by the willingness of so many Democratic leaders in the state to go along with it, and worried by reports that similar e-mails attacking Obama on abortion rights have gone out in other states preparing to vote.
"We still have battles to fight in New Hampshire and we can't let dirty politics destroy the choice voice here. It's too important," Rauh said.
"But for Clinton to do this to the choice community is so appalling.
I can't tell you how it distresses me ... how devastating this and how horrified I am that the Clinton campaign would do this. I fear it will happen elsewhere and it's just appalling."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted at 4:06 PM ET on Jan 18, 2008
Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Comments Please email us to report offensive comments.
SearingTruth:
Is this thread convenient enough for us to discuss abortion finally? I think my pending question went something like "Do you ever think of the millions of children killed by the evil that was Harry Blackmun?" : )
Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2008 04:33 PM
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
More outrageousness that demoralizes anyone who thinks politics can matter. A founder of a NARAL chapter didn't bother looking into the Obama smears before signing her name to them?
Others saying, now that they helped the Clinton's shamefully and dishonestly bury Obama in NH, that they'd like to kiss and make up?
There will be no "coming together" with the Clintons again for this die-hard Dem. I'm through with them.
Posted by: cmss1 | January 18, 2008 04:45 PM
cmss1:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
I hope you remember that pledge if Hillary indeed secures the Democratic nomination.
Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2008 04:48 PM
________________________________________________________________________________________________
There's a method here: surrogates coerced (balckmailed?) into slinging mud, then apologizing with shame and regret sometime not much later:
Tom Harkin's comments on islamic heritage, Rangel's comment about book sales, Bob Johnson's, and now this.
Seems like Clinton slash & burn, post-Rovian if you will.
Posted by: nickmj | January 18, 2008 04:49 PM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Will you join those of us in pledging to NOT vote for Hillary even if she secures the Democratic nomination?
Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2008 04:57 PM
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's a Clinton two-fer: Not only did the Clinton campaign mislead voters in Iowa and New Hampshire on an issue of importance, it misled its own supporters! Enoughs enough.
Posted by: wesfromGA | January 18, 2008 05:11 PM
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
They can apologize all they want, I will NEVER vote for Hillary after the Clintons' sliming and lying.
I am president of my local Planned Parenthood chapter and having a pro-choice president is critical.
But for the first time in my voting life, I will stay home, vote for the Green Party Candidate or
write in Obama if she is the nominee. If I wanted to vote for a candidate with no integrity who is
willing to do anything to win, I'd vote for a Republican.
Posted by: Free_Ride2300 | January 18, 2008 05:12 PM
Great essay!
Of all the things I admire in Obama, his tremendous self-discipline impressed me most. He stays cool throughout this campaign and in all the debates. This is not just a cool demeanor; this is not just style. This comes from his character. His consistent performance reflects his temperament, which ought to give us an idea of what kind of president he will be. He projects a quiet dignity, not through words, but through rejecting dirty tactics and through his refusal to be dragged down low. This, above all, is what sets him apart from Hillary Clinton.
In American politics today, very few things--very few people--are authentic. Politicians are like actors, constantly going through makeovers so they can continue to play a role (any role). Obama, on the other hand, is authentic. Many people recognize that in him, and they respond in kind. If you don't believe me, check out his website and see what the volunteers are doing spontaneously on their own. The enthusiasm is as real as it is infections.
Win or lose, Obama has a place in history. The same can't be said about Hillary Clinton.
Sure, she may be the first female nominee or president. Does that really mean that much? Look, Alberto Gonzalez was the first Hispanic Attorney General. But that is such a minor detail compared to what other things history will remember him by.
Way back in mid-2007, our grassroots group had a meeting with an Obama staffer formerly part of the Dean campaign, they cautioned us grassroots volunteers to never act like you were winning. No matter how much money you raise, or how many people attend meetings and rallies or canvasses, it is important to always keep an eye on generating momentum.
Every campaign has peaks and valleys in the campaign process. If you assume you're going to win, you can't keep your volunteers and support activated to keep up the momentum. If you always assume an uphill struggle, you always have to work hard to win. Obama was a little-known Junior Senator from Chicago with a funny name as he likes to say.
The Clintons had the most amazing campaign and fundraising machine out there. They had 100% name recognition, and some of the most experienced staff. Hillary had $10M left over from her Senate campaign to put into the presidential race. I think it got taken for granted, and Obama's loss in New Hampshire and in some of the Feb. 5th states kept his supporters motivated, part of the reason for his record-breaking number of contributions and contributors.
Come unto me all who are laden and I will give you rest for your soul-"CHANGE and HOPE" 008 ---Obama the new messiah for the 21st century. Obviously the change was or is not about "Politics as usual" as it is apparent that "Hope" was or is not about the racial overtones of the past. Obvious and apparent because Obama has made those two themes , "RACE and POLITICS AS USUAL" his strategy from the very beginning.
Anything to win! It doesn't matter how untrue. If people are fooled by it, that's fine. They will claim later that they weren't fooled at all but had other reasons for their support. Nobody likes to admit that they were fooled. So those that are will fight harder that the ones who originally believed in her.
That is the way propaganda works.
Why do you think Bush still has 19% of the people approving of him? Those are the ones who supported him only because they were badly fooled about his messages: "a uniter not a divider" etc.
Old style politics is the same for both parties. So sometimes C looks like a clone of B. And, politically, IS.
Another unsubstantiated assertion from an Obama-basher. What facts do you have to support your claim?
hear, hear! Sen. Obama has consistently refused to stoop to Penn/Rove's level of political tactics. He has done more to vivify the national conversation about race than anyone since Martin Luther King. He has been adamant from the start that his campaign is about one group of people, and one group of people alone : Americans. I'm with cheforacle, show me the facts.
Why is HuffPost so biased? Obama has been attacking Clinton right from the beginning as he keeps saying that Hillary stands for what is wrong with Washington. Yet we never see a headline that says Obama attacks Clinton. "Hillary attacks Obama" is very common though. If anyone is dividing the Democratic base it is HuffingtonPost, organizations such as Moveon and many Blacks who are voting for Obama because he is black. How can you explain 90% support? I am not white but if whites did that, it will surely be called racism. That kind of statistics cannot mean anything else other than racism. For example in the reddest of red states like Utah, Republicans get only about 65-70% of the vote.
Nofuzzydreams:
If I may point out the ending quote on the piece was Obama saying, "Remember New Hampshire."
Setting aside your dislike of Obama, isn't a relief from the dreary, somnambulent discourse when a candidate surprises the reporter with a little honest insight to his own concerns?
No single other such admisssion from any other public figure comes to mind. Are you thinking of Hillary's personal "admission" (when she "found her voice") of how noble she is in "caring for the country" and seemingly caring not for her own political fortunes in the campaign?
I agree with you that the longer the campaign goes, the better it is for voters. I disagree with you at this stage as to who that benefits.
Obama is JUST NOW becoming transparent.
His latest. After pounding Hillary in Ohio on NAFTA and claiming the high ground of being against it, he gets caught red-handed reassuring Canada that "he didn't mean it."
This is exactly why Hillary needs to stay strong and fight.
And this is why her supporters sent her a whopping $35 million in February.
And trust me......we're not the type to even contribute to a campaign. We don't honestly think they need that. LOL* So that's TRULY phenomenal. Obama supporters? They've been running a third-party candidacy since day 1. Makes sense they contribute. We regular Democrats? We're cheap.
So the longer this goes on, the better it is for America.
Personally, I think any candidate who gets the nomination based on some false pink cloud of fake momentum and messages of hope that lead to .......haven't figured that one out yet......
Is NOT what our country needs.
Hear me out.
It doesn't matter if you are for or against the candidate of my choice.
Let's get to know Obama. Really.
This is an important election.
If you can still be enthused after learning real things such as he's lying about NAFTA. OK. That's fair.
I've voted many times for politicians whom I knew full well were.......well, politicians.
But America deserves a real election this year.
We're exhausted from this war. We're headed into a major recession. We're facing a housing crisis that will make the 80's crash look like a walk in the park. We've got hospitals all over the Country shutting down due to uninsured patients. We have discovered that our government cannot even effectively warn us when tainted meat is being served in our schools because Bush gutted all the government agencies which protected us.
So let's slow down.
Let's let this primary season inform us fully.
In the end, what really unites people? Conviction.
Not speeches.
Deep conviction that we have been thorough. We have thrashed out the issues, sometimes swinging one way, sometimes the other, and landing in the middle sure that we have heard every single voice.
Conviction and unity emerges from confidence in the process.
Not from big rallies. And, frankly, not from easy-as-pie nominations that HIllary might have expected initially. Neither candidate should have a corner on unrealistic expectations.
Obama is just NOW being challenged on some key issues that, until now, have been discussed superficially at best. Is he ready?
His comments on Iraq made me......centrist Democratic.....sit up. What? We withdraw to keep your promise and re-enter when you notice that Al Qaida is real? What nonsense is this? Of course, it's real. It's real right now!
I know, cetainly, that he's run a classic Rovian campaign. I don't like it either, btw. And I REALLY don't like someone pretending to be the man of change while doing the opposite. I'm a nut on line up your actions with your words kind of person. That's my age showing. Too many times I've been bamboozled in life.
So the longer the season, the better off the people will be in the end.
Let the games continue.
Agreed, this is a really important election. That is why we must choose a candidate who can beat John McCain in November. Hillary Clinton is not that person. She loses to McCain in every single poll that I have seen; Obama wins vs. McCain in every poll I have seen. It would be one thing if there were conflicting results from several polls, but that is not the case here. Obama will take the nomination, and he will then win the general based on two issues where McCain, as a loyal Bush supporter who is virtually running on a "4 More Years" platform, will be destroyed: the war and the economy (headed further south even as I type this). HC can't unite her own party, let alone a country where Republican turnout will go up substantially just so that people can have the pleasure of voting against her. Yes, the fundamentalists will do what Democrats have been forced to do for all too long: they will hold their noses and vote for someone they don't really support because they hate his opponent even more. There is a time for cynicism and a time for realistic optimism; that is why we must support Obama.
There's too much to debunk here. The NAFTA story is urban legend but you repeat it as if it is gospel. You should be ashamed to offer so much disinformation as factual. Somerset Maugham was right: the gift of speech is not necessarily accompanied by the power of thought.
The Clinton camp has run a nasty divisive campaign, starting with the insinuations of Obama's drug use through surrogates like Bill Shaheen and Robert Johnson to purposefully misrepresenting Obama's pro life position to feminists in New Hampshire (so much so that several women political activists have shifted to the Obama camp) to Bill's playing the racial card in South Carolina to the "plagiarism" story and of course the recent photo story.
Through all the petulance and condescension of the Clinton campaign and its candidate, Obama has behaved with dignity. He took an awkward moment and made it his own. That is why he appeared so presidential and HRC did not.
AnninCA - ok lets continue on. Given the beating Obama has been taking from all sides this week by the machine it seems possible. The media need it to continue for their ratings. So while you and I disagree on the candidate, you are correct that the longer it goes on the more we see. Only thing I ask is that you don't help the McCain supporters on the boards.
the story about Canada has been debunked by the Obama camp.
Not really Dave. The newspaper's source still insist it's true.
Annie Dahling,
Obama has out raised your girl, out spoken, out orgnized and out Thought her. If you want to know him go and read the senate record and then compare it to Hil's - there is no comparison. Hillary can't work with others (she never has a bill co - sponsor) and she has proved she is an incompetent manager just by observing her campaign.
Oh Yeah the Canada story is a lie. I suppose you are going to tell us he's a Muslim Terrorist next?
Dyalan, you are quite right that Obama has that ingredient of great leadership, that is, the competence of learning through experience and new information. As his campaign has lengthened, he has listened and learned as much as he has instructed and informed. Also, a fundamental duty of a democratic leader is to enlighten as he campaigns. Obama is gradually, if most cautiously, sharing ideas with the citizens that originate from reality rather than self serving opportunism. As Obama proceeds through this campaign he will be a more powerful leader for the arduous challenges ahead. That is more than can be said for any of his detractors or opponents.
Great post! They keep attacking, and he keeps pushing them back (Bill, Hillary, McCain and now Bush). He's getting better all the time, while she is losing ground!
It 's sad how much negativity she's created in the process and she'll still lose! Many of us supported her but have grown tired for the lies, half-truths and hyperbole. Bill and Hillary, please exit stage left!
I agree that this was a great growth opportunity for Obama as a candidate. As evidenced by his getting stronger and stronger in debates, he seems to be learning from it. Now he's starting to mix in town hall style meetings in TX.
The best part of this is how it made his supporters respond. As Americans we're used to easy quick solutions like on tv. The loss in NH made his supporters redouble their efforts (and he got the biggest online donation kick up to that time right after his loss in the state) after they realized emotionally that it wouldn't be easy (they already knew that intellectually). I think it taught his supporters about patience and endurance.
If race or sex or even education or intelligence mattered, Condolezza Rice would have resigned long ago. What matters is behavior, such as voting. Clinton and Obama have identical voting records in supporting the Iraq war. All Bush or Israel has to do to prolong and worsen the war in Iraq is to goad Iran into retaliation by a campaign of air strikes against it. I believe this will happen starting after the party conventions in September. When Bush then sounds an alarm that Iran is attacking our troops, whether true or not, whoever the Democrat nominee may be will have the same excuse as McCain for continuing the Middle East Crusade. The only nonviolent way I can think of for Americans to avoid this is for voters, in mass numbers, after their primaries, to de-register from the Republican and Democratic parties, stop supporting them with money, refuse to tell pollsters how they are leaning and make clear to these conniving parties that deepening and worsening the war is unacceptable.
Excellent point, I'm afraid. My biggest fear (aside from McCain winning, thanks to the Dems who supposedly won't vote for Obama) has been that Bush will come up with a "justifiable" excuse to bomb Iran. He's pretty much biding his time, as it is, so I would not be at all surprised if/when he finds his excuse. After all, he's got nothing to lose. And I haven't seen much evidence that the Democrats are willing to be tarred with the brush of "giving aid to the enemy," by refusing to do his bidding. Already they seem to be back-pedaling on the issue of pulling the troops out of Iraq. My God! How many more Iraqis have to die, or be maimed, before this country sees that disaster for what it is? We are NOT fighting terrorism, we are merely generating more fodder for the terrorists!!!
DemocratIC nominee.
Posted February 29, 2008 | 09:09 AM (EST)