What a pathetic response from the Obama camp. Well, Hillary voted for Iraq, blah blah blah. Obama was not in the senate yet, and his 2002 speech about his vehement opposition of Iraq seems to have been yet another front from Obama, as he has shown some support for the war in his "tenure" in the senate.

What a pathetic ad from team Hillary! Does spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) ever really work as a strategy for the underdog, or does it just signal desperation? I think we'll find out on March 4 and I think the answer is already clear!

Wow, more scare tactics by Hillary! yes, she's one to make sound judgements and decisions?? She voted for the war in Iraq; she voted to declare the Iranian Military Forces as terrorist! That woman cannot run her own campaign and she wants to lead our country? As I see it, how a person runs his/her compaign IS THE LITMUS TEST on how he/she would govern. Hillary has PROVEN she does not have the wherewithall to govern.

What has Hillary done to exhibit any worthiness of our trust? What she's doing is a Mom's version of Rovian fearmongering. Be afraid - then vote for me, because I am somehow like you.

Yeah right. Just like all those hours she spent "working the night shift". What garbage.

Hillary has no clue what it's like to be a working mom in America in 2008. The Clintons have been in the elite so long, they are out of touch with the people. It'll be obvious on March 4th - people will figure it out.

The Obama camp is right. It's all about judgment and keeping your cool. It's not about crying at emotional moments.

None of us have had experience for all the crises we will meet in life. It's all about having the ability to make wise decisions at a moment of crisis.

I think it's called "supporting the troops" not supporting the war. They can be two different things, despite what some might have you believe. For example, one might vote simultaneously to improve body armor for our troops and to begin an immediate withdraw. You see how these two ideas do not necessarily conflict?

Hillary lied before,still does now and will lie in the future...
McCain was in the Keating Five.
Obama is right.
Let's face it.

What about the war is blah, blah. Do you really want a women in answering the phone, who can't keep her anger in check? Not me some hysterical dame making decisions that could cause a 3 war. Think about how she has handled campaign situations how her anger and bitterness shows through every time her lips move and the hatered in her eyes. Spooky lady.

New ad is starightfrom Rove's book: fearmongering. Just trying to hang on to last straw. How pathetic that is????

I'd like the president to be someone like Obama, who stays calm, thinks things through, and whose knee-jerk reaction is NOT to lash out blindly. Not someone whose first impulse is to attack (the wrong country) like Hillary.

As an Obama supporter, and I use that term VERY loosely, I agree with Anthony that this was a very weak response to the Clinton ad. As John McCain has already begun to highlight, this isn't about the vote that was cast in the past, it's about the decisions that must be made in the future. To use Obama's analogy from the debate, "It's not about who drove the bus into the ditch, it's about how to get the passengers safely out of the wreckage".

Although Senator Obama was a vocal anti-war spokesperson while running for the Senate, he never had to put his money where his mouth was and go against the grain by voting not to give the president the power to invade Iraq.

The Obama campaign needs to begin purging that "You voted to go to war in 2002" line from their arsenal, and replace it with some solutions for the future.

I agree with Anthony. That is a pathetic response. I've noticed that Obama is a good passive aggressive. He's attacking in his own way making it sound like a response. She obviously didn't vote for the war and Anthony is right, Obama wasn't around back then when tough decisions in a crisis had to be made. He was "present" in his state role. What a joke. It's always easy to criticize others who are doing the hard work while you're dodging tough decisions.

I don't think 4,000 US Troops dead and a million Iraqis dead falls under the 'blah blah blah" category. Obama's camp is dead on right. All the democrat and repugnican senators that voted for the war are war criminals. As long as McCain drank the coolaid, he's part of the problem.

Hang in there neocons, you days are numbered.

I would NOT WANT somebody with no judgment, very little critical, objective thinking who just votes with Bush even now....or, in regard to drivers license for illegals, decides until everybody else has decided first, to answer that phone....or she will just go on TV and just start crying or blaming somebody else, like you, the voter!!!!wake up from the clintonbush nightmare, that is the solution!!!

Why are we having this discussion. Hillary is going to get beat. Please stop sending her money. Remember after this, we Dems will all be one again. Pick a candidate who can cross political lines and beat John McCain. That's Obama. She needs to go so we can focus on the big picture.

A presidency is about judgement and hillary does not have that instinct.To respond to Anthony, are you implying that Obama should be voting against the funding of the war when the lives of American soldiers are at risk?

Yet another front? Please Anthony, your attempt to scrounge up something...ANYTHING that makes Obama look bad are pitiful at best. I see you haven't commented on the NUMEROUS skeltons in Clinton and McCain closets? Hmmm wonder why...

You just want more of the same divisive politics that have embarrassed our nation for 16 years.

Stop the Drama, vote Obama.

OK, Anthony, now let's take this a step further and build some constructive criticism of the Obama camp. For example, if you were heading his campaign, how would you have responded to the ad?

Ten minutes after his town hall ended and as Sen. Barack Obama worked the rope line and reporters packed up at the back of the auditorium, ears perked up when his voice came through the speakers.

"Where's Amy and Chase? Your son's in here," he said. It turned out the boy's name was Chase, but after that confusion Obama helped the child spot his mom. The family was reunited and the crowd applauded.

Hillary will just break down, crying!!!!

Well, at this moment, negative ads wont matter. America hast woken up to a new call. Its a global awareness. Several million voters cant be disillusioned. We have several people investing in the democratic party for one maain reason. The phone has been ringing for the past 7 years for a new change and no one picked it up. If America goes in this new direction, we wont have to bother picking up the phone at 3am. There will be peace in America.
All i know is that John Macain will be sound asleep at 3am, so both Hillary and Barack should start planning for America the right way and stop all these negative ads. We are about tired of them all right now.

Obama was in the senate when the war was being voted on. Not sure where you live but its obvious it wasn't Illinois.

Blah, blah, blah back to Anthony. I'm beginning to think that half the anti-Obama comments are posted by McCain supporters who want Hillary to win so their candidate can beat her!

While Obama has voted for funding to support troops in the field, he has been unequivocal in his opposition to the war in Iraq.

Plouffe's response is essentially correct. When the Clinton campaign has asked Democratic primary and caucus voters think will serve them better, they've been picking Obama.

The good news is that no matter who we elect, McCain, Clinton, or Obama, they will be an improvement on the scrubby weed currently infesting the place.

The response is well warranted. Hillary hasn't been able to show her real experience yet. Sure, being a first lady has some responsibility, but even then she dropped the ball as soon as her health care plan, which was unrealistic, got rejected by congress. If the election is decided on experience, then why would we choose the woman whose husband allowed hundreds of thousands of Africans to die because he didn't want to act; or the women whose husband allowed hundreds of thousands of people in Bosnia to be slaughtered before he took action. Sure, Obama may not have experience in the white house, but what good is experience being somewhere if you don't actually do anything while you're there.

I'm sure John McCain appreciates the free advertising. I mean, really. If that's the main question facing the next POTUS, I'm voting for McCain. The whole point of a Democratic candidacy is to say "we're NOT playing globo-cop or making military command decisions at 3 am and we ARE trying to fix our domestic policy & deficit mess."

Hillary has only been a senator for a few more years than Obama, and I agree with the point made by the Obama camp. When Clinton answers the phone, we go to war. Point made...

I have to agree. That was a pathetic response from the Obama camp. Is that all they can do is blame Hillary for the Iraq war. There are other things in the world that Obama better start paying attention to that he seems to know nothing about. It was evident in the last debate. I think the 'Iraq War' comments have grown tiring amongst the voters.

Its the Clinton ad itself which is pathetic. Hanging around for years on the fringes of events in no way qualifies as relevant experience for the post of President. In answering that 3 a.m. phone call her first response would likely be "Bill, what do I do now?

She did send thousands of boys and girls to their death in Iraq and unknown 100s of thousands of Iraqis all the while letting Bin Laden live free. She has blood on her hands, so does McLiberal. You don't know what you're talking about. Obama surely is going to vote to outfit the troops now they are there and he opposed vehemently when it was politically dicey to do so DURING HIS SENATE BID, with all white house patriotism propoganda. You are uninformed, stupid or misleading, please stop and help CLinton wash the blood off before taking any position on foreign policy.

what a silly comment. The idea that voting for the war is the same thing as supporting the troops once war begins is ridiculous.

Hillary had the chance to stop the war in Iraq before it began, and she failed to do so. She already knew then what she knows, and all of us know, now, about how bad a decision that was. Yet she lies about it, and she has not apologized.

I opposed the invasion before it occurred. I was attacked and accused of disloyalty to this nation despite serving in the infantry for years, and honorably, and well. I was a drill sergeant, later a commissioned officer. I served in elite units. I was accused of turning on America.

And Obama, running for office at that same time, publicly opposed the invasion. All of his friends told him it would cost him the election, and he did it anyway. Because it was the right and loyal and patriotic thing to do. Hillary did not.

I know who I want answering that 3 am phone call - the guy who had the courage to speak out and the wisdom to choose wisely. Not the "experienced" one who still got it wrong and won't admit it, even today.

I like Hillary. I would vote for her if she is the nominee. But she won't be. Our next president will be Obama, and we will show the world yet again that America is not over, that democracy isn't about not being wrong, it is about correcting mistakes and changing course when needed. Dictatorships and democracies both make mistakes, but democracies can learn and grow and change faster than any other form of government - watch and learn from Obama, the next president!

Here's the thing, Anthony: Hillary should have never voted for the Iraq war. Plain and simple. But she did. We'll never know if Obama would have or not, but we know that SHE did. Shame on her.

Please, Hillary is trying everything, I mean everything. If thing had been flipped and Hillary winning all these states, she would be singing a different tune for sure.

Crazy how she still thinks she can win.
Where is america morals? I guess out the window.
Go Obama

The suspense would be thrilling, wondering which Hillary will answer the telephone ...

Fear mongering will not work. Hillary is despicable. Voting against the war as some senators did and voting for funding for the troop are different and by voting for funding does not mean you support the war.

Hey Anthony...please get a clue...

Hillary got it wrong in 2002 and voted for an unjust immoral invasion.
In 2002 I knew that Bush's justifications were lies. So did the Massachussets representatives and senators and the 100 or so that voted against it. Hillary should have known too, but made the wrong political calculation.
No way I want her in charge to do that again.

Hillary: "I really should read the NIE before I go to war". "Oh well!" "General, just pull the trigger, I do not have time to read anything".

Yeah, right!

We cant go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton
What country is this. Common give peace a chance.

Yes, I'm sure our "experienced" first lady celebrity will know what to do. "Bill, what should I do?" "I dunno, Hill, be quiet, you're disturbing her rhythm!"

Pathetic response? Frankly, I think the response is dead-on appropriate. The uncomfortable truth for Sen. Clinton is that she was given the power and the right under the Constitution to go on record in a 2002 bill called the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq."

Since then, Hillary has desperately sought to rationalize and explain away her failure in judgment on that bill. There were others in Congress at the time who DID make the right decision not to support that bill, but Hillary wasn't one of them. Some mistakes aren't so easy to dismiss.

She had her red-phone moment, and few of those moments present themselves in history.

If Hillary's response to a world crisis is as desperate as her fear-mongering ad, I don't want her anywhere near a red phone!

"I've got some news," as the popular saying has been lately, for the poster Anthony above...

Hillary DID vote for Iraq

True, Obama was NOT in the Senate yet...should he have jumped in his time machine to become a senator at that moment so he could cast a vote?

As Obama has clearly explained in the last debate, among other instances that you either missed or simply choose to ignore, he has indeed voted to support the troops once they were already there but this in no way indicates support for the war having been initiated in the first place.

I'm not sure about the purpose of the quotation marks around the word tenure, since Obama has in fact been a senator for 11 years (state + national) while Hillary has only been a senator for 7 years.

Upon answering the phone, Clinton will have to first calculate how which option best suits her political aspirations. The response to the phone call will be about how she is perceived, politically, and not what is right or wrong. Hillary's administration would lack transparency just like Bush's team except most people would have "D"s in front of their names instead of "R"s. Go Obama.

I am deeply impressed with the speed and effectiveness with which Obama has responded to both the Clinton and McCain attacks. I once worked for a congressman that is now a senator - I've been around campaigns. This is no ordinary politician that we have been watching mature in front of our eyes. It has taken great skill and intelligence to have unseated Clinton - particularly given the incredible advantage bestowed upon her by her core support of older women voters that comprise such a large voting bloc, which is especially true in the democratic party. I feel sorry for Clinton supporters that are so bitter that they cannot appreciate the history being made in front of them everyday.

I don't understand how someone who vehemently opposed the Iraq war from the start can have an almost identical voting record in the Senate as Senator Clinton? To justify his voting record, Senator Obama says "Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out." I don't think Plouffe's argument regarding judgment holds much water when Senator Obama hasn't shown any courage to truly back up what he believes (as has been demonstrated by his voting record).

Hi,

I think the whole basis of Obhama's election champain is focused on somehow winning the nomination and he repeats the slogan 'change ' to attract gaulible voters as was shown in the comedy film "Evan Almighty". The word is being repeated without identifying any target issue to be improved or changed.

This line of attack from the Hillbillies should be easy to blunt. The argument needs to contrast 'experience' with 'judgment' and 'courage'. Dubbya now has experience, but few people believe that he makes good decisions. Clinton's vote for the war IS important, because either she exercised poor judgment, or she didn't have the courage of her convictions. Obama has demonstrated both courage and good judgment (speaking out against the war, when it was very unfashionable to do so). Besides that, Obama has a positive vision of where our country CAN go, a vision which doesn't define human experience increasingly by our fears or daemons. This kind of strength is hard to come by, and we would do well to earn the president we would like to deserve by voting for that person.

Are they serious? How many times have they touted this line? They seem to have forgotten that Mr. Obama was not even a Senator in 2002--and the media seems to gloss over that point too. Everyone also seems to have forgotten that his voting record has been nearly identical to Hillary's since he's actually been in the Senate. Can't people see through this demagoguery? Obama is all talk, no action. Just look at his a hundred thirty-something "present" votes in Illinois for proof. I also think his response to Louis Farakkhan's endorsement was absolutely reprehensible. It doesn't matter whether he thinks you're a "good guy" or not, Senator Obama: he's a vehement and angry anti-Semite, among other things! Hillary was absolutely correct in her response.

What a pathetic ad from the Clinton campaign! Do we want a president who has at least said he didn't approve of the way the invasion of Iraq was handled, or a president whose husband activated the military more times than any other since WWII (until the current prez that is), tucked tail and ran from Somalia, and refused to acknowledge events in Rawanda as a genocide, saying, "There were acts of genocide," but no genocide (yes, yes, that was Reno, not Clinton, but Billy wasn't saying much at the time)? Frankly, McCain is probably best suited to answer that phone, but since there is about a million other things just as important for the President to do, I'll go with Obama, thanks.

A vote to fund the troops once Hillary and Bush drove the Bus into the ditch is not the same as a vote to authorize Bush to wage a misguided war.

You won't fool anyone. Hillary played politics with American lives when she voted to authorize war. She is paying a light price compared to those who lost their lives.

Pathetic response? I mean really - what does that even mean?
Thing is - The ad doesn't really deserve a response. Unfortunately the Clinton camp has seen fit to resort - in a big way - to the worst kind of politics. The kind of message and campaign strategy that gave most Democrats a sharp pain after the previous two presidential campaigns. We were left wondering - how did people buy into this stuff? Who are these people? But now it's one of us doing it.
C'mon now.. we see the ad for what it is. Nothing more. Getting into an argument with someone who tries to depict it otherwise is silly. If you've already done the mental gymnastics required to buy into this kind of message then the prospect of any kind of intelligent discourse has been lost.

Again with the fear mongering. Is this Hillary Clinton or George Bush circa 2004.

Despicable.

GO OBAMA!

Well, I don't want a commander in-chief who cries tears to say she is a woman and voters should sympathize with her. She is honored to sit next to Obama one day, she curses him the other day, and ridicules him the next day... and is sitting with him all smiles another day.

If the "Red Phone" rings and she starts crying on the phone, can there be anyone who can feel safe???

Once again we see the Clinton campagin involved in a last ditch effort to save her flailing candidacy by using politics of fear. It hasn't worked so far and I doubt that this attempt will make any difference.

Anthony, what would you have had Obama do in the Senate? Refuse funding to the troops that were already on the ground? Once Congress authorized the war, the only real ongoing control they had is the control of the purse. Withholding financial support from brave soldiers who need that support is hardly the way to settle your disagreement with the president over whether the war should continue to be waged.

This isn't some kind of red herring: Democrats almost universally agree that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We agree that it's the biggest mistake of the last eight years. And yet you are arguing that Hillary is more fit to make a tough decision even though she was on the wrong side of our generation's biggest blunder.

Nice talking points Anthony - voting to give adequate funding to troops that are already deployed isn't the same thing as supporting the policy decision of deploying them in the first place.

I wouldn't call this a "red phone" moment for Hillary, but more of a Daisy one, and involving equally despicable and inaccurate smears. Let's just hope it's not as effective this time around (it doesn't look like it will be).

To Anthony: The Obama campaign response was appropriate. If Clinton is going to tout that she'll answer the red phone at 3am and show good judment then it's fair game to point to her past actions and point out her poor judgment in similar situations. If she's going to suggest she's the right person to make the call, she's got to show us 'where the beef' is, and her past record doesn't necessarily show her in a good light. Now, Anthony, your point would make more sense if Obama had run the same 3am ad for himself--then you could say his opposition meant something different b/c he was campaigning for state senate at the time. But he didn't run the ad, Hillary did, and she can't back it up. Neither does her 1992-1993 health care reform debacle speak to her ability to achieve 'solutions' and 'get things done'.

2 cents

I'm sorry, I was an idiot early. I forgot, he spoke out strongly against the war in Iraq during a much contested fight for his senate seat. An opinion, that could have cost him the fight.

And he has said numerous times that Clinton helped drive the bus into the ditch. But once it was there, the objective then became, how do we get it out.

After a careful review, I see now, Obama is the only clear choice for President. Especially after the divisive, dirty politics Hillary Clinton continues to play, Barack Obama is getting my vote.

Obama is the only candidate who not only understands our country, our people, their needs bu also he is the ONLY one who understands the World ( for a change).

He is the only one who can save our coutry in the era of globalization ( to those who have lived outside the US , please belive me )

Vote Obama

Voting for troop funding isn't the same thing as supporting the war. His voting record on Iraq war funding isn't too much different from that of Russel Feingold, likely the single most outspoken critic of the war from the very beginning. There's a huge difference in having to make decision about having to run the war after everybody else made it a reality than supporting it in the first place, as Hillary did.

Basically, trying to equate Obama's position on war funding to "support" for said war is ludicrious. He spoke out against it from the beginning and has consistently voted in favor of withdrawl in his Senate term. How much more opposition do you need?

I can see this ad backfiring in a big way: In her own commercial, she lets the red phone ring a staggering 6 times. Forget for a second who we want to answer the damned thing -- we want it answered, and promptly.

The phrase is "shop worn." I am amazed and enraged to find that 66% of the news stories today contain ridiculous errors of spelling, grammar and even absurd errors of fact.

Sure, these stories are prepared hastily in order to meet the immediate time to print requirements of the Internet Age, but there are spell-checkers, thare are resources available to avoid such mistakes.

Most of all, it simply seems lazy and dumb to me.

Oh, and Anthony, that was simply a quick response from the Obama campaign staff, not the Senator; furthermore, let us not forget, that Mr. Obama has always supported the troops once they were in Iraq, but has never supported the war, unlike Hillary who took more than three years to grudgingly come around to the idea that ending US presence in Iraq was a "worthy idea."

I was once a very strong Clinton supporter, but I have seen the habitual unwillingness to provide straight answers, the ungracious and immature comments, and finally, the shambles of a professional campaign mismananged and botched at almost every turn, and honestly can say that if this is the example of her being "ready on day one" then the nation cannot afford Hillary as President. Obama has demonstrated that he can manage, adapt, learn and dominate an opponent, while keeping cool, keeping his dignity and poise. That to me is the real proof of being ready on "day one."

Obama's response just pwn'd Hillary's ad. No wonder Hillary's losing, she's spending money on these worthless ads that just get shot down with a quickness.

What a sorry tactic that screams of desperation by Hillary. how can she complain about the Obama camp using the Rove playbook, when she tries the tried and true fearmongering strategy utilized by Bush in 2004. the mushroom cloud... and that al queada is coming to your local town and home to blow up main street america unless u make the right choice for president. I hope America is able to see past these cheap political tricks and understand that in a crisis that will require the red phone to ring at will be manned by career profesionals and those advising the president on how to respond will also be career profesionals and will most likely be the SAME people regardless of the president. so lets stop the petty tricks and DEAL WITH ISSUES HONESTLY

I think what is pathetic is that Hillary is trying to ride on the Clinton legacy with regards to security. And what is that?

Cut to a picture of people asleep at the wheel, while embassy's are bombed, ships attacked, diplomats exectuted, well before 9/11.

Besides it being funny that she keeps pointing out her weaknesses, it also stinks of exactly the kind of thing George Bush drums on about and what the Republicans will be chanting till the end.

She should hang it up.

What's pathetic is that Hillary has stooped to using the fear card repeatedly, the standard Bush & Rove tactic. That does not represent change at all. It's just more attempt at fear manipulation, which is why she is losing support by the minute. People are smarter than that.

Anthony,

Obama was a state senator at the time, and was running for re-election when he made the anti-war speech, an unpopular sentiment at the time.

As a Senator, he voted to fund the troops during occupation of Iraq. This is common sense. The troops there didn't have the funding for bullet proof vests till legislation was pushed through.

As he said in the most recent debate with Hillary Clinton, once the bus had been driven into the ditch, there were only so many ways to get it back out. The question is who voted to drive the bus into the ditch?

This is not to overly disparage Hillary Clinton. Many senators at the time voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq due to the post 9/11 atmosphere that was prevalent in the country at the time.

However, Obama can rightly point out that not only did he speak out against the war, but he also said in an interview in 2002 that with current plans would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost with undetermined consequences. He said it would incite a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunis and distract the U.S. from its mission in Afghanistan. Everything he said would happen did happen. His record on Iraq is outstanding.

If Hilary Clinton would like to trot out her "leadership" in times of crisis, than it is more than fair for her to be challenged on it. What many of our elected officials, including Hillary, did when the Bush camp pulled out phony information to support their attack on Iraq was dash behind them so that they could stand under the "being tough" banner. We needed opposition from our Democratic Party members -- whether senators, governors, mayors or simply registered voters -- not shadows of the Republican Party. Hilary FAILED the nation then, and it is shocking that she expects us to not only overlook that but credit her for her work. No way!

P.S. I left the Democratic Party to register as an Independent. Hillary Clinton will not be the candidate to bring this registered and regular voter back.

Pathetic? I realize that the Clintons are desperate, so it shouldn't be surprising to see language like that coming out of their supporters.

There's no contradiction in arguing against an epic blunder but then voting to support our troops once they're there.

Clinton gets more desperate by the day.

Anthony,
Stop you’re "whining" and realize that "CHANGE" is coming. Is it so hard for you to see that everyone that has occupied the Oval office has given the same speech with almost the same results? Now that someone comes along with new ideas, new policies and a different way of thinking, you have a problem with it. When was the last time one candidate united all races for a common goal? Is there something about him that you can reasonably say that he cannot perform the job? Hillary standing "BEHIND" Bill C. does not qualify her as having experience. If you can put a "C" student in the white house and surround him with a half competent staff, then you sure as hell can put a well educated Professor and Senator in to complete the job. But in respect to you, you have every right to cast your vote for whom you wish. You'll just be one of the whiners after the 2008 presidential inauguration of President Barack O'Bama

What's really pathetic is the use of ads instigating fear while claiming a hypothetic capability to handle a hypothetical situation. It would also be pathetic to fall for that kind of propaganda, for decisions based on fear are commonly wrong.

The only reason Hillary voted for the war was because she convinced herself that no other Dem could mount a serious challenge and she wanted to show everyone how "tough" she could be as commander in cheif. Now she is living with the consequence of that miscalculation. So we should add "underestimates the opposition" to her many flaws. Obama simply voted to keep the troops properly supplied after they were already there. No one is buying Hillary's argument that he supported the war after he was in the Senate.

What people should really be worried about at 3 A.M. is Bill answering the phone!

Obama is our Savior. Please everyone, we must rally around Michelle and Barak so they can change evil an america. Racist america oppressed Michelle when she went to Princeton and Harvard. Lets us give her something to be proud of. Barak can treaty with our muslim brothers and apologize for a arrogant america.

How cheap is this. Hillary's team is pathetic. Hillary how many wrong phone calls will you pick up.
America is indeed on a change, and Hillary is not the person.

We have been had by a man promising "hope" and "change" who has no hope of changing anything.

This ad is great for people with IQ over 94 (Bush's IQ)Wait till Obama sees the ads the republicans will run.

I am a life long MA democrat but if Obama is nominated I will request an early ballot for write in voting and cast my vote for McCain. There is no chance of Obama beating McCain because the black vote in a general election is about 10% as compared to about 30% in the democratic primary and coupled with the many democrats and independent voters that will easily vote McCain, the 10% black vote won't help Obama.

It is really too bad that Obama didn't realize the great opportunity he might have enjoyed as VP for Hillary. Now he will be an "also ran" like so many of his endorsers, Kennedy, Kerry, Jackson. I also will never vote kennedy or Kerry again for MA senators because despite their endorement of Obama this state voted overwhelmingly against Obama and for Hillary. I realize that as superdeligates these 2 fools can change their mind and vote for Hillary at the convention but it won't change my mind on where to cast my vote when these 2 senaotrs are up for re-election.

Massachusettes as a state is an equal opportunity employer and has elected for Governor white males, a white woman, a black man and even a republican........but we voted no Obama and our senators (and Gov. Patrick) have failed us with their support for Obama.

Today, the beawutiful blond child who was sleeping during the 'red phone' ad spoke out to say she is an avid Obama fan.That ad was made 8 years ago, and now she is 17 years old and ready to support Obama. Perhaps, the phone call was only from a member of the family.This was seen on CNN today.