Wolfie was offended? He should be glad he can list the possible negative attacks in only four sentences. The Clinton "Kitchen Sink Brigade" should fashion new campaign posters:

"Clinton: Democrats for McCain"

Is it negative to remind people of something they already know to be true?

Is it negative to remind people of something they already know to be true?
Stop whining!

MY FELLOW “BITTER”, STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of “BITTER”!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...

Even though I'm thought of by many as an intelligent, successful young woman, according to Jack here, I'm obviously an idiot (see above).

Trying to force one's point of view on people by insulting them almost never works. Good luck getting others to vote for Hillary.

Obama '08

Oh, did the Clinton's have "moral authority" going into this race?

Hey Jacko.

I MIGHT be an idiot.

But I know that by backing Ms. Clinton, you ARE one.

"Trying to force one's point of view on people by insulting them almost never works. Good luck getting others to vote for Hillary"

Do you even read your own words? Or are you a delusional as she is.

Slash and burn? For both candidates, it is just a modified version of their standard "blame" politics which the the Democrats have been practicing for the past eight years and Clinton and Obama have perfected in the last four years.

We had a clinton in office once for 8 years.
What happened?
Hundreds pardoned.
NAFTA.
No health care in eight years.
Oh, who voted for the Iraq war.

Obama '08

remember NAFTA on tuesday!!!

"jacksmith" is the kind of Clinton supporter who reminds me why I so passionately prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton.

> If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

I grew up in poverty, in rural southeast Kansas, with divorced parents, and a racist gun-loving alcoholic blue-collar father -- and I think what Obama said was right on the mark. What is idiotic to me is to so terribly misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent what Obama actually said.

For years now, strategists of the Karl Rove ilk have managed to convince people in my father's socioeconomic stratum to vote against their best interests, by exploiting their cynicism on actually relevant (e.g. economic) issues, and convincing them to vote on polarizing but relatively inconsequential (to them) issues, like gay marriage. Obama was absolutely accurate when he pointed out this kind of depraved exploitation that happens when hardship causes people to turn toward pillars of security and solidarity, like what they find in fundamentalism. It is funny that this is even seriously questioned, when most educated people readily admit that one of the greatest deterrents to extremism/terrorism is better education and prosperity.

What I think is actually insulting and degrading to blue-collar America is when effete pols strut around in hunting garb (i.e. John Kerry in the last election) or pretend to be rugged outdoorsmen (i.e. Bush during his campaigning), or present themselves as avid beer-chugging hunters, or even speak with a fake southern drawl, as Hillary Clinton has done in this campaign. And it's all the more despicable and ironic when you consider her "screw 'em" response to that demographic back in 1995:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

> If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

Or you might be an idiot if you actually believe this experience myth. That "35 years of experience" claim requires us to count every year since Clinton graduated from law school. But Suzanne Goldenberg, author of a new book about Clinton, Madam President, and a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Guardian, points out that it's difficult to see how Clinton calculates her 35 years of public service, since her full-time job for many years was working for a corporate law firm in Arkansas.

On Obama's experience:

* Barack Obama will have held elected office for 12 years before becoming President. Hillary Clinton will only have held office for 8 years.

* She cited her experience as the reason she voted to go to Iraq, so that nullified her experience argument.

* Even Bill Clinton (who had no foreign policy or Washington experience) said when people criticized him for being inexperienced in the 1990s that, "The same old experience is not relevant."

* Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy were before they took the presidency.

* As John Kerry argues, Barack Obama has more legislative experience than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

* Barack Obama has passed more progressive legislation in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton.

> If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

Again you use the "no experience" myth, which damages your credibility. Either way, I agree that Bill Clinton was a an outstanding President. But he's not running, Hillary is. If your argument is that Hillary will be able to draw on Bill's experience, note that so too will Obama be able to draw on the wisdom and experience of the cabinet members and advisors he will appoint. In fact, many from the former Clinton administration have recently come out in support of Barack Obama! And Obama has shown a record of picking extremely gifted advisors, as well as a command of economics that certainly rivals Bill Clinton's knowledge when he took office.

In short, it was wrong of you to try to make this a debate between Barack and Bill, instead of Barack and Hillary. But even if we stoop to that, Barack can still compete with Bill in every way. I feel that he has all of Bill's brilliance, but is even more selfless and audacious. And I'm sorry, but the tack of making us nostalgic for Bill Clinton's administration will not convince intelligent people that they should support Hillary Clinton. It's an emotional, almost Rovian, ploy that we won't fall for.

> If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

More outright falsehoods. Barack Obama has passed more progressive legislation in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton. As an Illinois Senator he passed over 200 of the bills he wrote, including

* A bill that expanded healthcare to over 100,000 people in Illinois.

* A bill that set up community health centers to serve underserved populations.

As for Hillary's universal health care effort, it was noble in intention, but failed. That failure cannot be entirely blamed on her, but many feel it was largely a result of her inability/unwillingness to build bi-partisan support by inspiring and compromising with those across the aisle. Her legislative record shows that in numerous instances, she chose to go it alone, whereas Barack almost always fought to get co-signers. As such, he's been notably more successful. That kind of skill has shown through in his campaign, where he's been able to overpower a powerhouse that the Clinton's have been building for years, when most Americans didn't even know who he was a few years ago.

> If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

Uhh...hello? She voted for the (unconstitutional) authorization to go to war in the first place, in a time when Obama was spiritedly denouncing the idea of war with Iraq. Maybe we can assume Bill Clinton wouldn't have done that, based on his record. But we're not voting on a Bill-vs-Barack ticket.

Do you ever wonder why people like Bill Richardson and Robert Reich -- who worked under the Clinton administration -- have endorsed Obama? Obviously they agreed with you that Clinton was a very competent President. But you have to stop equating Bill with Hillary.

And even if Bill was running, I'd still pick Obama as the more competent and scrupulous choice.

> If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

The League of Conservation Voters has given Barack Obama the highest lifetime rating of anyone currently running for president. Including Hillary Clinton. But I guess you think that shouldn't matter since her husband was such a great President.

> If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salarys than they had ever been before or since.

What evidence do you have that the following two statements are BOTH true?

A: Hillary Clinton will be as good on education as Bill Clinton was.
B: Barack Obama will not be as good on education as Bill Clinton was.

I mean, beyond just ranting about how great Bill Clinton was, and how Barack Obama has "no experience", do you have anything of actual merit to say?

>If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

At the right hand? Huh? Do you even know what responsibilities Hillary Clinton had under Bill's administration? Until very very recently, her schedule wasn't even public, so no one knew. And now it turns out she didn't do much of any real importance, that would have given her valuable experience or tested her competence. Her biggest project was the health care initiative, which failed.

> If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

Barack's experience is absolutely comparable to Hillary's. But in the end, experience is only as valuable as the goodness of one's intentions, and one's ability to make use of that experience. By voting for the Iraq war, and the Flag Desecration Amendment, and to declare Iran a terrorist state (neocon saber-rattling), Hillary Clinton has shown that she has both bad authoritarian intentions, and bad judgment that renders her experience far less effective.

Obama's speeches are pretty because they demonstrate a kind of learnedness and humility that we just don't see from Hillary Clinton. I know Clinton fans would love to believe that Obama's supporters are just delusional and naive, but we are anything but. We're ambitious and high-minded and optimistic.

> If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Nope. My first choice (by far) was Ron Paul, an incredibly fiscally conservative candidate. I'm not supporting Obama because I think McCain can beat him, but not Hillary. I'm supporting him because I think he's brilliant and pragmatic and level-headed. I think McCain will give us more of the same Bush-era warmongering, and won't do enough to fight for our civil liberties.

If you actually look at the polling that's been done throughout this campaign, centrists and moderate Republicans often prefer Obama to McCain to Clinton. Obama has a better chance of winning, because he can bring in more of the swing voters. Like me.

> If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

More deceptive baloney. Hillary's connection to Big Pharma is massive. Back in 2006, she was already the second in donations from the medical sector:

"According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354."

> You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

All the major Democratic candidates in this primary campaign have had universal health care policies. But Obama's is, to me and to many who have a deep understanding of the economics of the medical industry, more practical -- and he hasn't already failed at this before.

> Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry.

How many would die if there wasn't profit in making medical technological advances like beta blockers or MRI's ?

You must hate that capitalism saves all those lives and improves so many people's quality of life.

> Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

That's a great argument for supporting Barack Obama for President, since he's got a better health care plan and has historically been more successful as a legislator.

Enough is enough. Hillary Clinton is absolutely ruining any chance democrats have of taking the white house; all the while, her stubborn and close-minded followers persist that she has a chance to win. Get this Clintonistas--she's got no chance. None. Zip. Clinton is simply ruining the reputation of a man by manufacturing character flaws. People that consider Obama to be racist or elitist are simply out of touch. Clinton is more elitist than Obama could ever hope to be. Also, for all those Clinton people who think her plans are so great, why don't you look at the actual money and resources needed to obtain her goals. It's insane to think that Hillary's health care system would work better than obama's considering it needs nearly 50% more funding. How does she go about ensuring the insurance. Also, all that experience Clintonistas talk about--it's a load of codswallop. 8 years as first lady counts as jack squat, while Obama has been an elected public servant longer. Where does she get 35 years experience from? This country can't be held down by old, stubborn people (yes, I'm generalizing); it'll kill it.

LOL...Sounds like they are WHINING!

Can't stand the HEAT? Get out of the KITCHEN!