Battle-Tested

With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier one -- than Democrats anticipated.

Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.

Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife -- outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.

But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?

How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?

How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?

Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.

George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.

In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.

Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."

If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.

Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.

This article is adapted from a piece published in the Baltimore Sun on February 12, 2008

Comments

[nypoet22]

I agree that Hillary is a fighter, and would probably do a pretty good job, both in the general election and as president. however, right now she is in very real danger of alienating a large portion of her base. Her campaign's self-serving stances on Michigan, Florida and the super-delegates issue could lose her the general election. This is not to say Obama's campaign hasn't been self-serving too, but Hillary already energizes the Cons to bring out the hordes against her, so she really can't afford to lose so many of Obama's supporters in the General.

here's a better way for her to win:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/guest-column-how-hillary_b_86552.html

[BardEric]

You can see her as self-serving on her stance on FL & MI, or you can see it like the people who live in these states see it. -Standing her ground to make sure our voices get heard too! Barack took his name off the MI ballot, and we aren't going to be very happy if we have to vote for the candidate that abondoned us.As far as FL is concerned,the National Party needs to just give HRC her delegates!!I hope they noticed the huge turnout in the FL primaries even though everybody knew the votes there were not going to count.That speaks volumes to anyone who takes the time to take a real hard, objective LOOK at what happened in FL. BHO got creamated there even though he stayed on the ballot.Beauty contest there, or no, Hillary's support there dwarfs obama's and would bode well for her in the GE.

[nypoet22]

I live in Florida too, thank you very much. I would much rather there be a re-vote here than either having the current votes counted or remaining disenfranchised. The party rules said neither candidate could campaign here, and the delegates wouldn't be counted. If the rules are changed to accept the january vote, many disaffected dems will (not might, _will_) stay home or vote for mccain in november. I'd show up for a re-vote, wouldn't you? who knows, she might win by even more.

[bbln]

agree with you BardEric -

Since when has the DNC been in the business of disenfranchising 1.7 million voters, and don't tell me a do-over-caucus will make up for it - a caucus that will represent a miniscule number of people vs. those who went to the Primary?

Howard Dean is so far up Obama's "can" that he's ripping the Democrats apart. FIRE HOWARD DEAN!

[ema1962]

Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for an important article. I was a supporter of Edwards, but since he has left the field, I have transferred my vote to Sen. Clinton. I am concerned about the lack of interest in an examination of Obama's political history, record, motivations, etc. Besides the "journalists" fawning over him, people are being swayed by his charisma; and not delving deeply enough into the issues. The whole thing is taking on elements of a cult -- the charismatic leader bringing a culture under his sway -- and it is beginning to scare the hell out of me. I hope I am not forced to choose between him and McCain in Nov., I may be wishing Bloomberg gets in!

[cpro]

This is probably the best argument for Hillary that I've seen, but I'm still not convinced. .
I fundamentally disagree that she's been thoroughly "battle-tested" and proven herself. She's never had a difficult campaign before; one when she was first-lady, and one where she was incumbent, neither with much resistance in either the primary or general election. However, when she actually has a difficult primary fight, everything falls apart. If she were so experienced at using and fighting with the political machine, how could she be doing so bad..
The Republican attacks against her have worked, at least a little; she has relatively high negatives compared to all of her opponents. How many Hillary supporters say they would never vote for Obama? How many vice-versa? I think that is the true measure effective the attacks against her have been.

[BardEric]

Are you kidding?!? Bill and Hillary have been under CONSTANT fire from the republicans since the moment Bill first took office, and the 'pubs have never managed to take them out.If that isn't "battle tested" then I dont know what is.Hillary was the 1rst first lady who ever had to face such rabid political attacks; before then it was considered more out of bounds to smear the first spouse. She proved herself well THEN and she continues to prove herself NOW by stnading up for what she believes, and never flinching from what the political propaganda machine can throw at her.

[daddysboy]

You make a very effective argument. I particularly liked this line: "To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues.". It seems to me that the only way to fully support policies that only benefit a small group of people is by marginalizing the voice of the fair and reasonable majority. You outlined their chief tool very eloquently and yes, Obama has yet to prove himself in this arena but I think you might be surprised as Obama strikes me as a man with an overabundance of practical intelligence combined with the dynamic charisma necessary to win people over. Hillary Clinton has proven herself, but seems to lacks the ability to channel the American voter's passion into real politics due to her lack of charisma. It is very telling that she shows even the tiniest bit of emotion and it is the talk for weeks. I like Hillary and think she would be highly effective; I just think Americans will have a more difficult time understanding her as she doesn't project herself the way that Obama does.

[Orikinla]

Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson,
I was very critical of you and your brave wife Valerie for exposing the dummy of the Weapons of Mass Destruction used by President George W. Bush for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, because I have always insisted that the war in Iraq is strategically part of the war on terror. We cannot deny that the Al Qaeda has been operating in Iraq even before 9/11. The Al Qaeda has been operating active cells in their network from the Middle East to Asia and Africa since the early 1990s.

The emotional support for Senator Barack Obama is natural, but irrational in view of the realities of these interesting times. Yes, most Americans want a drastic change in Washington, but who is capable of such a reformation and transformation?
The one who is more idealistic, but lacks the expertise to steer the leadership of America in the chaotic state of the world or the one who has the guts, skills, and wits to confront the realities of the turbulent world?

Most of those being swayed by the political momentum of the political gospel of Barack Obama will not read between the lines of your argument. Their angst against Washington has turned them into political protestants who despise and loathe the GOP and Hillary Clinton, who has been victimized in the political campaign of calumny of the “Obamacans” and anti-Clinton Cult in the mainstream news media and social network sites and blogs.
Their argument against her presidential ambition lacks substance.

Barack Obama is the New Face of American Democracy and the only way forward for the Democratic Party to win the presidential election is to go with the flow of the momentum of the Spirit of the American Dream.

Senator Hillary Clinton should welcome the political gospel of change and she can actually ride on the political momentum of Barack Obama to win the presidential nomination, because she has what it takes to begin the change in Washington from Day One.

[moevaughn]

Thank you, Joe Wilson! Please do me a favor and give Hillary and/or her advisors a call and pass on my suggestion that when the topic of her vote on the Iraq resolution comes up in another debate or from the public, she quote directly from the resolution, to wit:

In the resolution, Bush agreed to, quote: "work with the U.N. Security Council to meet the common challenge posed by Iraq."

On 3/7/03 the U.N. inspectors reported there was no evidence of a WMD program and requested more time to complete their work. Bush dismissed their report and declared the U.S. forces were on their way.
Mr. Bush did not abide by the binding resolution to work with the U.N. to meet the challenge of Iraq. (I'm not a lawyer but since the resolution was binding and Bush broke the terms of the resolution, did he then break the law? He should be arrested to say the least!)
A All H. has to do is repeat that quotation directly from the resolution whenever the subject comes up again. She voted for Bush to work with the U.N. He did not. Period. The resolution was not a blank check. He went to war preemptively, breaking the terms of the resolution. (It makes me so mad that Bush himself and the media--and even some liberals have fallen into their trap--blame others for Bush's illegal war. )

[daddysboy]

You are absolutely correct, but I would still have like to have heard Hillary Clinton apologize even while being right. Her stubborn refusal to speak the words came across as very arrogant and left many people with a strong suspicion of her true agenda.

[December7]

When Obama opposed the war, he outlined his reasons without being privy to the intelligence report. On the other hand, Hilary did not read the report. The country needs no other distinctions in judgment and character of the two

[hinnis]

How many times must you Obama fanatics be reminded that Obama did not oppose the war after his 2002 speech! In 2004 he said that he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the war; the same year he said there was virtually no difference between his position and that of George Bush's; and after he was elected to the Senate, he voted for the war in every vote until he ran for president. Please look up the facts before you draw conclusions bassed on Obama propoganda!

[BardEric]

But without the "propaganda" there just really wouldn't be much there for BHO to run on; is there? He has to count on his devotees to believe all the hype or he doesnt stand a chance. Unfortunately, looks like enough people are buying the Kool-aid.

[monique]

Excellent Mr. Wilson. Thank you.

Every word was true. It is so frustrating that people do not seem to use their brains at election time.

Remember how before the 2004 election, when the nation was fed up with our incompetent President, and it looked like such a sure thing for the Democrats to be the victor. Yet the Republican smear machine went to work and people got scared, people didn't think, and they re-elected a man who had so clearly demonstrated himself to be in over his head, and that did not care about the issues that the public cared about. They got what they deserved.

Are they going to screw it up again? Can they not step back from the hype, and see what catastrophic problems we have facing us, what extreme problems and damage we will be left to deal with after this hideous administration?

How can anyone in their right mind not realize how incredibly important experience is right now? We don't have any margins. We can not afford any time while a neophyte learns on our watch right now.

Your piece was on the mark. But will it sink in? I would never have thought that people would be so blind and foolish as to re-elect Bush. It made me lose all confidence in the voting public. Are they going to screw up again? Very, very sad.

[aspen]

I have lost all confidence in the voting public.
When you hear people say they would support Ron Paul and if not him then Dennis Kucinich polar opposites, you know the speaker hasn't a clue.
I am ready for a parlimentary system like Englands

[JamesEB]

While I respect Mr. Wilson's courage in speaking out against the Bush Administration's deceptions in manufacturing a case for war in Iraq, I have to say that this piece is absolutely absurd. The fact is that Hillary's voting record pertaining to the war is indefensible, and any attempt to rationalize her actions inevitably lead to this sort of nonsense. Criticizing Hillary's vote for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force isn't to mischaracterize the lead-up to the invasion: the Bush Administration's intentions to go to war were transparent from the start, and if Hillary lacked the judgement to suspect what was painfully obvious to the rest of the world, Mr. Wilson's praise is baseless.

As others have indicated, Hillary voted against the Levin amendment, which would have ensured that the Authorization did what Mr. Wilson claims Hillary believed it would: support further inspections and diplomatic engagements. It should also be noted that Hillary, by her own admission, did not bother to read the NIE on Iraq released shortly before the vote; and since staffers would not have the security clearance requisite to sign it out, read it, and brief her, it's evident that she predetermined her vote without troubling herself with the "facts."

The fact is that Hillary's entire Senate career has been a preliminary campaign for the Presidency, and she has spent it attempting to construct a carefully calculated voting record that would make her a viable candidate--the most important element of which was demonstrating that she was "tough on terror." I think it's fairly obvious that Hillary was going to vote for whatever war the Administration had to offer, provided that it polled well and its tortured connection to the "War on Terror" was sufficiently compelling.

Hillary thought that she could proudly point to that vote as an instance in which she took a stand against terror; rather, she voted for a war that's cost hundreds of thousands of lives, derailed the U.S. economy, and destroyed its reputation and standing in the world. Claiming to be a dupe simply doesn't cut it.

[Robin08]

Thank you JamesEB. Your post makes one of the points that jumped out at me after reading Wilson's article.

You say it well when you write, "Criticizing Hillary's vote for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force isn't to mischaracterize the lead-up to the invasion: the Bush Administration's intentions to go to war were transparent from the start, and if Hillary lacked the judgement to suspect what was painfully obvious to the rest of the world, Mr. Wilson's praise is baseless".

[BetoPasillo]

Mr. Wilson, because you served in the Bill Clinton adminstration, I understand your loyalty to Hillary. I don't think that justifies your embrace of the "Republican attack machine"'s mis-charac­terization of Barack Obama. He has not advocated any reckless attack of Pakistan. He said that he would order the use of force only if Osama Bin Laden were known to be there and the Pakistan government either could not or would not take him out. When he said in 2004 that there was not "much difference" between his position and Bush's, he was not referring to the original decision, years earlier, to start that war. Finally, please tell me about the occasion that Hillary, according to you, "defeated the Republican attack machine". I must have missed the memo about that. Was it when she tried to get a health care plan enacted?
Why should we expect anything else from Hillary than we had with Bill? Remember "triangulation" and "the end of big government" and "welfare reform" without any protection for the workers forced into the labor market? It is true that Barack Obama did not have access to the intelligence estimate that Hillary did when she authorized "The Use of Military Force in Iraq" (part of the title of the resolution for which she voted). It is also true that Hillary has admitted that she did not even read the intelligence estimate before casting her vote, relying instead on "briefings" at the White House. You, from personal experience with the integrity of White House analyses, should know how foolish it was for her to rely on them as a guide for granting war power to George Bush. I suggest that you support Hillary with whatever excuses you can make for her, but resist the temptation to join the Republican swift-boaters' attack on Obama.

[Robin08]

Thank you BetoPasillo. You too make a point that jumped out at me after reading Wilson's article and the the mischaracterization of Obama's remarks regarding Osama Bin Laden and Pakistan. I didn't hear shit from Wilson or anybody else when Joe Biden (Chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee) said the same damn thing on Face on the Nation.

Here's the pertinent excerpt:

SCHIEFFER: And you were saying this morning it would not bother you to go into a sovereign
country, Pakistan, to track down Osama bin Laden?

Sen. BIDEN: I--well, I've been arguing for seven years now that a country forfeits its sovereignty
when it is either promoting, operating with or engaged in benign neglect against terrorists who
are using their forces to damage US interests and threaten the United States of America. And the
argument would be made that if we had actionable intelligen­ce--meanin­g we knew where they
were, we could do it, it was likely to succeed--and the Pakistanis did not support us in doing that, and/or would not help us, I would not hesitate to use that if it was actionable and my military told me I would likely succeed.

Sen. BIDEN: And, as you know, it is our policy as a nation. Our policy is that if, in fact, a terrorist is being hidden and/or operating out of another country's territory and they're not taking action to deal with that, and it's affecting US interests, that they effectively forfeited their sovereignty.

[WillBFair]

Obama's bizarre rhetoric and grandiose promises were invented to mislead young people, just as the pandering talk of a 'new generation' of leaders. Translation: Vote for me because I'm young. He is either hopelessly ignorant of American society or actually believes his rhetoric. And he won't be able to deliver on most of the promises. But young people don't have the knowledge and experience to see through obvious hype. They were easily fooled by media smears of Hillary because they don't know the difference between empty insults and factual reasoning. And they don't have the experience to ask why a media owned by the war and oil industries is supporting Obama. Because the Clintons are the strongest and most capable liberals in our life time, that's why.

[BardEric]

I think it significant to note that the last time we had such a large, motivated young voter movement was during Bill Clintons first run for the White House. I find it ironic that the very demographic that overwhelmingly supported the Clintons in the 90's, has abandoned them in todays political world. The youth movement of today think that they have a new, unique perspective on politics, just as the movement did then. Wonder how many years it will be before we start viewing Obama as an "old school" instead of an agent of change?

[Dajo]

I Voted for Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons:
1) IMO,the toughest Democrat Running
2) The smartest Democrat Running
3) The Only Universal Health Care Plan left among the Candidates of either party
4)Better Voting Record inthe Senate than Obama,in 2006 she voted 60 more times than Obama
5) At a recent stop to a Candidate Information event at a local Union Hall I gather up some campagin signs & Bumper Stickers.I am a Union Man so I only display signs & sticker with the Union Printing Label (Union Bug) on them. Hillary's Bumper Stickers & Rally Sign both have the UnionBug on them,I saw an Obama Bumper Sticker. I thought it had a Union Bug in the corner but then I took a closer look. It was his website cleverly configured to give the appearance of a Union Bug. Pathetic. Shame on the scab printer that printed them. Shame on the campgain staff that allowed that bumper sticker to defile our Union Hall...

[Justtellthetruth]

Sending everyone in America to prison, and calling it Universal Housing would not make it so.

Forcing every American, By law and with threats of garnished wages, to buy health insurance from the companies that will continue to Lie, Steal, overcharge and under serve is an ABUSE of the term universal health care.

But I'm sure the companies that pay Hillary SO much PAC money are delighted with the prospect of getting 50 million more captive customers.

[strifeknot]

You got it. HRC's health care plan is just a giveaway to the insurance industry, and is about as useful to Americans in need as her husband's welfare "reform."

[daddysboy]

I am currently fully insured by a quality health-care plan provided generously by the agency I work for. I would gladly pay double or even triple my share if it means a few more people could get their medicine.

[hinnis]

Justtellthetruth: Live up to your name!!

[awb]

another example of loyalty trumping clear thinking

Sen Clinton is having difficulty with her campaign, her husband and her message

She is marketed and polled and turned inside out

The newest one I saw today is she wants to be the "First Latina President"

Hillary Clinton was fine as herself - too bad she didn't realize it early enough to qualify her to be president - because now there is too much baggage, too many obligations, too many favors owed

This is evidence of just one more

If Hillary Clinton wants to make a stab at winning this thing - she needs to get rid of Penn, Wolfson and McAuliffe and get a professional campaign manager who is not an old crony

In a few days one can see the new strategy ATTACK - CIRCUMVENT - JUST ON THIS SIDE OF TRUTHFULNESS----

Mr. Wilson got the memo
Too bad for us all -- these public servants have made it all too personal

[Lemeritus]

awb, Ambassador Wilson is a diplomat who served in at least three administrations, including Bush I and the abysmal Bush II. He and his wife have unique prospectives on the world and the talents required to successfully lead this country.

Personally, I have long felt that the next administration will be consumed with the task of cleaning up after George W. Bush and tend to agree with Ambassador Wilson's assessment: "Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule."

As a note, I do not discount the power to move mountains inherent in Senator Obama's campaign. Perhaps this is the way we should do -- rather than simply erasing the scribbles, we should start with a fresh new piece of paper.

I reject your intimation that Wilson's thoughts represent Clinton cronyism. If anything is "another example of loyalty trumping clear thinking", your comments seem to be.

[coulterbooks]

Wake up People!! A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. That's all there is to it. So if you all want another 4 years of war, all your tax dollars going to the military, more tax cuts for the rich, covert operations, domestic spying, continual erosion of our great constitution, womens rights reversing, no health care... I can go on and on....
Go ahead, vote for Obama. You must be on some other planet if you believe that the white male system will allow a black man, with little experience in either foreign and/or domestic affairs, to be president of the United States of America at this time in our history! Wake up people... you are playing right into the republican machine! President McCain... you got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!

[anghiari]

David Wilhelm, former campaign manager for Bill Clinton's 1992 run...has just endorsed Barack Obama in the NYTimes today.
"He said in a conference call today that Mr. Obama was more electable than Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign is evidence of his leadership, he said, calling it “masterful.”
“He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her,” Mr. Wilhelm said. “I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model” of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising."
Anybody else notice that Bill Clinton's former best and brightest employees chose to go work for Obama rather than Hillary Clinton. Mr. Wilson shovels you a bush of stuff when right before our eyes Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy blew up in her face after losing her first primary battle in Iowa...and its been downhill since then. Not even California or Nevada could help when her campaign manager has blown through $100 dollars so far...and Hillary had no clue??? Experienced??

[CharliePfromHB]

If you have learned anything, you should have Obama is beyond racism, and that's why more people are responding to this movement. We've known for a long time that the Republicans would use fear, immigration, and socialism charges to herd the anti Hillary or the anti Barack efforts. The question is it Hillary toughness that will defeat McCain or is it the new holder of the torch for the shining light on the hill. If you are paying attention, you'll see that when Obama turns his focus towards November, he will be as good a street fighter as there is. If now isn't the best time for America to turn its back on the race card, when will it be? America needs to choose between the best candidates who are not under the thumb of the lobbyists...Obama and McCain. Then America can choose between fear driven comittment to the status quo (McCain), or willingness to step up to a commitment to change.(Obama). The key word is comittment, because it's going to take the strong will and sacrifice of American populism to effect the kind of change necessary to take on the oil-military industrial complex-in­surance-ph­arma power brokers maintaining the status quo. You have to believe one thing between now and Novemeber-Yes we can. Or you can buckle under to twentieth century thinking. We do have to fear -fear itself but respond with clear leadership that can lift the voters to the kind of new beginning that the world can get behind. Strong, yes, including level headed realism and tenacity about eliminating Terrorists. But also strong enough to lead the United States and the world to a new chance for a global economy and a global ecology. If you can't say it, you can't do it, because the status quo is the risky business, not Barack Obama.

[daddysboy]

Where would anyone have learned that "Obama is beyond racism"? He isn't. There is and will continue to be a HUGE struggle to overcome the racist factor. We haven't even seen the really ugly stuff because many don't yet fully believes that he can take the nomination. If he does, watch the racism pour out; subtle and by proxy at first, then blatant as we approach the general election.

[LincolnlandBabe]

Thank you, Joe Wilson, not only for your service to our country, but but by pointing out that Obama just doesn't have it, meaning back-bone and guts. He hasn't done jack for us as a Senator here in Illinois, and abandoned his constituents here, who are the very people he vowed to be an advocate for. We counted on him to be our voice in Washington--he only ended up hurting us by not following through on his campaign promises. If all these Obama followers experienced the rejection we feel here in Illinois, they might not be so caught up in his pretty, yet hollow speeches.

[anghiari]

David Wilhelm, former campaign manager for Bill Clinton's 1992 run...has just endorsed Barack Obama in the NYTimes today.
"He said in a conference call today that Mr. Obama was more electable than Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama"s campaign is evidence of his leadership, he said, calling it "masterful."
"He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her," Mr. Wilhelm said. "I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model" of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising."
Anybody else notice that Bill Clinton's former best and brightest employees chose to go work for Obama rather than Hillary Clinton. Mr. Wilson shovels you a bush of stuff when right before our eyes Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy blew up in her face after losing her first primary battle in Iowa...and its been downhill since then. Not even California or Nevada could help when her campaign manager has blown through $100 dollars so far...and Hillary had no clue??? Experienced??