Fight night at debate
Clinton, Obama attack each other; Edwards tries to take high road
By Robert Behre
Photo Gallery
Democratic Debate in Myrtle Beach
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama square off in a debate at the Palace Theater in Myrtle Beach on Monday January 21, 2008 as supporters braved the cold outside.
Video
Democratic Debate in Myrtle Beach
Yvonne Wenger talks to campaign supporters outside the Palace Theatre where the Democratic presidential debate is taking place.
MYRTLE BEACH — The three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls spent the evening of Martin Luther King Day here talking about how they would fulfill the civil rights leader's dream. That, and fighting a lot.
Their final televised debate before Saturday's primary was arguably their testiest to date, particularly as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois engaged in a fiery exchange over each other's record — and how each other was portraying that record on the campaign trail.
At one point, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina tried to inject by saying, "There's a third person in the debate."
Monday night's debate, put on by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus, will go down as their chance to talk about politics and race — because it was held on the King holiday and because South Carolina's primary is the first with significant participation by black voters.
The Obama and Clinton camps were sparring before the debate began, and Obama soon complained that Clinton and her husband were misrepresenting his record, such as his recent comments about President Ronald Reagan.
"I do think that your record and what you say does matter," Clinton responded. "And when it comes to a lot of issues that are important in this race, it is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said, because as soon as he is confronted on it, he says that's not what he meant."
Obama then countered: "What I said was ... that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda I objected to," he said. "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."
They then clashed over Bill Clinton's role in the campaign to date: Clinton said Obama talked to a Reno newspaper about Reagan, adding, "I did not mention his (Reagan's) name."
"Your husband did," Obama responded.
"Well, I'm here. He's not," Clinton said.
"OK. We'll, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama added.
Former Sen. John Edwards tried to intervene but was asked to wait by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.
After that, Clinton barbed Obama again about Reagan saying he was "bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."
Obama later said that work involved five hours of his work at a law firm representing a church group that had partnered with Rezko.
When Edwards finally got a chance to speak, he won applause by saying, "I want to know on behalf of voters here in South Carolina, (with) this kind of squabbling, how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get an education from this? ... I respect both of my fellow candidates, but we have got to understand this is not about us personally."
The debate marked the third time the Democratic contenders have debated in South Carolina. Last April, the debate at S.C. State University in Orangeburg marked a sort of campaign kickoff and revolved around the greatest issue of that day: the war in Iraq.
Their second South Carolina debate was held in July at The Citadel and was differentiated by the serious yet playful questions posed by average voters via YouTube clips.
The candidates made nicer in the second, less formal hour of the debate, where the discussion turned to the historic reality of the first primary featuring frontrunners who are a woman, a black man and a South Carolina native.
Asked whether Obama thought President Bill Clinton was "the nation's first African-American president," as author Toni Morrison has said, he praised Clinton's special bond with the black community and then joked, "I would have to investigate more Bill's dancing abilities and some of his other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was a brother."
Clinton joked that such a dance audition could be arranged. She said there was no better way to celebrate King's legacy than having these diverse candidates debate Sunday night. "Right has no sex and truth has no color. That is the profound message of Dr. King."
They also talked about other issues of particularly interest to the black community. Both Clinton and Obama mentioned the disproportionately large number of blacks in the nation's prisons and jails.
They debated whether Obama's coverage was truly universal or whether it would leave 15 million uninsured, how tied they were to lobbyists, how they would handle Iraq and a host of economic issues.
And they talked about their own electability, arguing which one stood the best chance against Republican Sen. John McCain, whose victory in Saturday's South Carolina primary has made him the frontrunner in that race.
Clinton then was asked if her husband was playing too prominent a role in her campaign, partly because Rep. and Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., told CNN Monday that, "I think he (Clinton) can afford to tone it down."
She replied that she was appreciative of his work on her behalf. "He feels very strongly about this country and what's at stake," she said. "(But) this campaign is not about our spouses. It's about us."
The debate concluded when each were asked if King were alive, why would he endorse them.
Edwards, who had met with King's son recently in Atlanta, "and he was very kind with me," said he has been pushing King's two biggest issues: equality and ending poverty in America."
Obama said he didn't think King would endorse any of the candidates. "I think what he would call on the American people to do is to hold us accountable. I don't think change occurs from the top down. I think it occurs from the bottom up, and Dr. King understood that."
Clinton didn't directly answer whether King would endorse her but said, "Dr. King transformed the lives of so many of us, and I intend to do everything I can to make his legacy real in the lives of Americans."
While it can be debated which Democrat won the debate, S.C. Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson said he was confident of a GOP victory here in November. "Although they spent hours bitterly sniping with each other, all three remained united in their desire to raise taxes, turn over our health care to Washington bureaucrats, and surrender to terrorists in Iraq."
Clyburn predicted the debate would be a definitive moment in the Democrats' race for the presidency, but he also didn't think many Democrats here remain undecided.
"I think people are getting 'undecided' mixed up with 'undeclared,' " he said.
Clyburn has refrained from declaring who he will support because he wants South Carolina to reap the economic benefits that come from being an early primary state and estimated that the state could get $50 million of exposure from the debate.
"I've talked to many people here, and they're telling me they have to come back here when the weather is nicer," he said.
Reach Robert Behre at rbehre@postandcourier.com or 937-5771.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
newto843 (anonymous) says...
Go John go!
January 22, 2008 at 1:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Truth2u (anonymous) says...
Barack Hussein, his church and best friend preacher and their good buddy Louis Farrakhan are the real issue and no one talks about it.
Reverend Wright, Osama's best friend, says that 9-11 was deserved and the majority of the people don't even know this....
On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."
While Mr. Obama stated his opposition to the Iraq war in conventional terms, Mr. Wright issued a "War on Iraq I.Q. Test," with questions like, "Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/...
Give me a break people!!! Get educated before we put the final nail in America's coffin.
Other sources of interest to those who seek the truth:
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_...
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2937953
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
http://www.trumpetmag.com/home.cfm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXeNk...
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran...
January 22, 2008 at 2:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TrumanPlan (anonymous) says...
In Illinois the Obama Machine is commonly referred to as the Daily-crat Machine: Now, don't get me wrong, Chicago politics works fine in Chicago, but it fails miserably outside of the city. It is a "machine" and the "machine" is run by "bosses". We know those bosses in other terms a cross between a thug and a politician where patronage runs the city. What a Obama presidency would spell out clearly is allowing the Chicago "bosses" to come into the world view and seize control of the forces that shape our government. Trust me, these "bosses" would demand from Obama the reins of power in DC and they would abuse our system in order to continue the patronage system. It is the way politics is run in Chicago, and they know no other way. The results would not be pretty, it would be infamous.
Now Chicago thinks they have a jolly good candidate. A man of hope, one that will lead this nation to a new era. Here is the facts. Obama is not a brave man, usually ambitious people aren't. When criticized he runs toward others - like Oprah, or Bill Cosby, Mayor Richard Daily, or Sen. Durbin. He plays the patronage game with gusto, it is his means to control. Yet it is his Chicago machine that should concern America, insidious, devious, and selfish the Chicago machine taught Karl Rove his politics, and launched another President into the White House who worked the patronage racket George Bush. So today, we just exchange parties, but not philosophy. Remember too, Obama, a Daily-crat, will choose not intelligent men like himself, but followers. Daily was superb at that culling the herds of advocates for the most amendable, the most stupid. Stupidity paves the way to control and maintenance of power.
So if you gentlemen and ladies of South Carolina think you will get an appointment, or a position within the Obama presidency - think again - you will have to be approved by a Chicago Daley-crat - and money in the palm is the way it is in Chi Town.
January 22, 2008 at 3:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TrumanPlan (anonymous) says...
Obama is a Daily-crat first, a Democrat second. When the election comes, the first wave of Chicago politics will be discovered, when Republicans challenge the results of the vote, because Chicago politics and voting is shady and disreputable. In true Chicago fashion, everyone will scream, rant, and cast accusation against those who contest the results and if going to court, the court will disallow the vote. How will that fare in America? How will that fare for Democrats? Don't believe take a look at St. Louis in 2004 where thousands of addicts and street people were cultured for a month by the Chicago machine then bussed to the polls for cigarettes, booze, and food. The result, the court condemned, but as there was no precedent on Missouri law, the results stood. The Republicans have adjusted nationally to the abuses that the Chicago machine interjects into mainstream politics. They are wary, and they are ready, knowing they can beat Obama because they know his "machine out of Chicago". Not only will they beat Obama's 'machine", they will deliver the haymarket punch to the Democrats, making the party look unscrupulous and corrupt. That is not what Democrats are, nor should they deserve such infamy. But in their ignorance and innocence, those that settle and vote for Obama will open the door to DC for the Chicago bosses. Then we will have another four to eight years of a re-play of George Bush.
January 22, 2008 at 3:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mggoose2000 (anonymous) says...
I haven't seen a great candidate yet! The United States of America is in trouble. May God have mercy on us!
January 22, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ForPnC (anonymous) says...
I watched the first the 45 minutes of this debate last night. Obama and Clinton acted liked two kids with their constant barbs and interruptions.
Edwards - You have my vote.
January 22, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bgilbert (anonymous) says...
I like Edwards. I know the media have discounted him, and the people seem to be following along, but I don't think it's too late to really include Edwards in this race in a vote driven way. You hear his ideas, you know many of them came well in advance of either Hillary's or Obama's and yet no credit for this is lodged in the media. He put out a booklet with his ideas and ways to pay for them, but it never got any attention. Martin Luther King III recognized his singular fight to eliminate poverty (and maybe poverty driven crime) in this country and implored him to stay in the race. What if MLK had given up when his critics came after him? We can't ignore the poorest in this country and consider ourselves a successful moral society. These arguments tonight were selfish and ego driven.
January 22, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
YankeeLady (anonymous) says...
For too long now the media has ignored John Edwards; after all, it is far more glamorous and interesting to journalists to focus on a potential first woman or first black president. Hopefully, last night showed that Mr. Edwards is a passionate and very viable candidate who embraces the concerns of a majority of Americans. Let's not let the news media tell us who we should pay attention to.
January 22, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bgilbert (anonymous) says...
I don't think most of us need those extensive posts on the candidates and the list of their positions. So many people pull endless things from the internet to support their own positions, but it becomes tedious and ineffective since most of us are doing what ever research we can on our own. I think we're all learning to trust our own intelligence and not the run on posts of these people who are so convinced of their postiions that they resort to belittling everyone else.
January 22, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
Thanks Bgilbert!!!!!! Someone said something.
I would rather have the sex spam on this board then the idiotic campaign spam crap. Ok, I lied. I don't want that either.
Why is everyone surprised about the constant bickering? Umm, last I heard they were politicians. The whole process is to find the lesser of all the evils. Maybe that is cynical but it is what it is. Trying to find the most "innocent" or the less "corrupt" is like finding a needle in a haystack. Lets not try to make these people into something they're not.
I like John Edwards as well but the fact that his wife is really sick doesn't sit right with me. I feel his attention should be on that. I am sad that he had to play referee to the children though.
January 22, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ln1959 (anonymous) says...
I am very behooved to the constant reference to Farrakhan. So I take it that PlamettoMan only sees Obama as a the only politician that has ties to out spoken personnels. Come on PlamettoMan, every politician have criminal ties. So speaking of Farrakhan will only help the people who are not gonna vote for Obama cause he is black, or that they all ready knew who they were gonna vote for. I am a black man and still have not made my mind up. I know for one it will not be Hillary, and if Huckebee could make it through, I think i would vote for him, and I am a Dem. So please, stop playing the scare tactics, its not working. And for Clyburn, if he wasn't black, and was trying tying to bring in 50 million dollars to the state, it would be a great thing.
January 22, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoebaby77 (anonymous) says...
Go Edwards, go!
January 22, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
captivated (anonymous) says...
Go In 1n1959, go! I agree with your comments and I believe most of these posters who chose to spend their morning hours digging up whatever dirt they can find on Obama, should try thinking about the positive things being said by all three candidates. We need positive change in America and if Bugs Bunny could bring us that, I would vote for him! GO OBAMA GO!
January 22, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madd_dog2020 (anonymous) says...
Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals. He has called whites "blue-eyed devils" and the "anti-Christ." He has described Jews as "bloodsuckers" who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
The Klan hate Blacks, Jews, and homesexuals; have even called blacks names that is much worst than anything Farrakhan have said. Yesterday, King holiday, the Klan marched in La.; what a slap in the face of Black American's.
January 22, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tygers1231 (anonymous) says...
Picture of Senator Barack Obama Failing to Salute the Flag While Others on a Platform, Including Senator Hillary Clinton, are Saluting-Truth
Follow this link and you too can see this picture:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/...
Now do we really need someone that shows such disrespect for our country and disrespect for our active duty members currently serving in the WAR???? Think about your decision prior to casting your vote!
had heard about this but a picture is definitely worth 1000 words! God save us!!!
January 22, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
Black people in SC have always been stupid as rocks. They've never beaten the GOP in that state because they don't have the brain power to figure out how to beat them. I mean think about it, why would you allow yourselves to be manipulated on the race issue?? Do you really think that crap above is coming from another Democrat? Get a brain, it's coming from people laughing their A$$es off at how easily they can pull your strings. And what is this crap, all Obama has to do is change his dialect a little, appear blacker on the outside, and black people are not smart enough to see through the crap, even with 8 yrs of evidence to the contrary, and every Republican/former slave owner on East Battery cursing the Clinton's at ever dinner table the last 16 yrs.LOL.. I'm just gonna call a spade a spade, blacks in that state are stupid as h***. Thank God more intelligent blacks will decide this election up north.
January 22, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Southerngal (anonymous) says...
Concerning electing Obama -- This is the only chance to elect a Black president. There will be plenty of chances to elect a woman president down the road. (Some) women have more money and education and will be able to run for office, but that isn't true with the Black community. We have Obama who is a star candidated. We should think long and hard about this. Hillary is a U. S. Senator and she was in the White House for two terms. We need to think of this opportunity for the Blacks and minorities may have in electing Obama.
January 22, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeayea (anonymous) says...
What does everyone think about Obama's 'present' votes? It's a vote for 'yes' or 'no' that the people of Illinois elected him to pick a side. So why would we elect someone who doesn't even do his job in the Senate? I believe the only person without a major flaw and the only person I feel that has been honest (because he hasn't been attacked so severely) is John Edwards. Go John 08'!
January 22, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
captivated (anonymous) says...
So, JEdgmon; did the stupid black people of SC put the present idiot in the white house? Just curious.
January 22, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
Jedgmon - What a way to start a post. After reading that first line any thing you say after that has been complete discredited. Sorry, won't read any further.
Southerngal - You shouldn't vote for someone b/c they look like you. Sorry, I am not voting for Hilary b/c I am a woman and I won't for Barack b/c he's HALF black. I won't vote for Edwards b/c he's southern. It doesn't work like that. People make ignorant decisions that way. Just b/c he is HALF-BLACK (notice I say HALF b/c DUH he is only half black) doesn't necessarily mean he has "black" interests at heart. Same goes for Hillary and John. Hillary may not have interests of women at heart either.
PS - The American side of Obama is from his mother who is WHITE people. Stop saying that he is black. I know I have probably slipped up a few times myself but I have to catch myself from saying that too. He is not black. He is 1/2 black and 1/2 white.
January 22, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
Captivated. yes I said it, I call it like it is, black people in South Carolina are stupid as rocks. I mean think about it fools, why in the world would the Clinton's or any Democrat play the races against each other, when African American's, Latino's, and poor people make up a good majority of the DEM base? 95% of that crap is coming from the GOP and even someone with an IQ in the 60's should be able to see it a mile a way. Which apparently Obama doesn't have either, because he's the one that dragged that debate into the gutter first last night with the Wal Mart comment. I'm sure the GOP laughed at how stupid the DEMS looked all night long after that. Captivated, but to answer your question, yes they helped, SC went GOP as it always does in the last general election.
January 22, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
soapboxcom (anonymous) says...
Beware the Clintonistas....they are everywhere. So much so that this crap (Obama's a muslim, obama's a druggie, obama's Beezelbub incarnate because his middle name is Hussein)...is actually commented on by mainstream media.
Funny how I haven't seen such tripe posted or circulated about Hillary...she of Whitewater and cattle futures and disappearing witnesses and failed national healthcare (and a hefty campaign check FROM healthcare to boot)...she of looking the other way not once, not twice, but for at least three confirmed affairs by her husband...
If you look at the drivel posted by the Clintonistas...you'll see politics as usual.
If you vote for Hillary...you are VOTING for politics as usual. And if you're okay with politics as usual, you're either rich or stupid.
We need a serious change from the leglock held on our nation by two very powerful families. We're NOT a monarchy, folks. And certainly (IMO) not the kind of people who'll sit there and allow the continued political destruction of our nation.
Obama, Edwards, hell...even Kucinich...there are voices out there that don't echo from duplicitous hallways. Beware the Clintonistas and their ilk--they, like the Bush's before them...thrive on a policy of fear rather than hope.
January 22, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bluegreen (anonymous) says...
Now That Barack is No Longer the Anointed One, Will He Fight or Fold?
by James Boyce
Posted January 22, 2008
In the snows of New Hampshire, Barack Obama had the chance to put the Clinton dynasty to rest, and hubris got him. They took their feet off the gas, they thought they had won, and they let a champion off of the mat and back in the game. Once the champion is back standing, only trouble lies ahead and trouble is what Obama has.
His situation, of course, is far from desperate and the race is far from over, but it's how the campaign is reacting is what would concern me if I was an Obama supporter.
The best analogy I can think of is of a very spoiled child who has just gotten their favorite toy taken away from them. They are pouty, whiny and wrong.
But those who were inspired by the message of Barack should not be disappointed in it, but they should in the messenger's campaign.
Why would you spend more time attacking Democrats than Republicans?
Barack has insulted President Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry while praising Ronald Reagan? Why? The hubris that said I have already won the nomination and am moving onto the general.
Why would you consciously ignore the netroots, the land where hope and passion lives in the party? Why? Hubris, and the knowledge that you are truly not as progressive as they are, and the hope the distance will make the differences less apparent.
Why would you repeat right wing talking points, "social security is in crisis?" Who knows? I think this is just pure stupidity.
And who can you not be ready in California? Hubris as campaign offices open two weeks before a must win primary.
Now the news comes that Obama has broken the pledge not to campaign in Florida, and Hillary will eat his lunch.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-b...
January 22, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
"JohnQ" what in the h*** are you even talking about???
And test 2009 who cares whether you read my post or not, I sure don't. We both know you read it all, in its entirety, hated what yoiu read, because it's the truth, and discredited it, as you did. And then lied and said you didn't, revealing your lack of character all at one time. LOL..
January 22, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bluegreen (anonymous) says...
I'm no Clinton supporter, but if you deal with realities and facts, out of the two Corporate Front Runners, she is clearly superior. She has unmatchable experience, FACT. She's won an election and re-election in in a state she just moved to.
On the issues, SHE beats even Obama.
Cheneys Nuke and Oil payola Energy Bill,
Clinton no
Obama YES
On 2005 Bankruptcy Amendment to cap interest rate to a maximum 30 pct.
Obama NO
Clinton YES
Obama on 2nd pushing Lobbyist backed Liquified Coal Bill, which would have added so much more polution, CO2
Obama YES
Clinton NO
on policies....hands down Clinton is more progressive...on Economy...to Health Care.
Universal Health Care FOR ALL?
Obama NO
Clinton yes
That's honesty
January 22, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
Jedgmon - Drinking so early in the day is not good when one wants to actually make a point. Because I am unable to figure out what the hell you actually mean... you will be ignored.
January 22, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
lol Early
January 22, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bluegreen (anonymous) says...
I had a feeling Obama was going to lose it at the debate lastnight,
because he has such a angry look on his face. His mannerisms were were
showing hostility. Then he proceeded to do opposite of everything he
claims. 'Let's move on, but first.......' 'Stop attacking, but [I'll
slander Bill Clinton for claiming he's lying'] let me attack Bill Clinton
and you'. Like a child having a temper tantrum, he went way beyond
anything he could ever claim 'other Washington politicians' to have done.
"Obama: Is Bill Clinton really a 'brother'? I'd have to see him dance"
I was surprised that it's ok for Obama to make that comment, but if
someone else, like Lou Dobbs, Imus, or HECK EVEN BILL CLINTON himself made
that comment , everyone would be screaming RACIST. But it was OK for
Barack to make that stereo typical comment, huh?
Hypocrisy runs deep with him.
And then his comment that John Edwards would receive the "white mans vote".
Nice, huh?
Now reports are that he is breaking a campaign promise and will campaign
in Florida. Check please.
January 22, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bluegreen (anonymous) says...
And, speaking of Rezko, where Obama wasn't truthful there either. What, he claimed he only worked 5 hours for the man. REALLY?
Since early 90's when they became friends, after also making deals with each other, Rezko became a money bundler for Obama. They became quite close and bought their homes next door to each other 2 years ago, after winning his US Senate seat. He also then agreed to buy some of Rezko's land so he had more, for about $100,000.00. News and reports Rezko and his circle have given about $160,000.00 to Obama and that does not include their special deals with buying stocks, etc.
Obama has decided to donate what he considers about the amount he received directly from Rezko, aproximately $40,000.00 to Charity.
But remember, he doesn't know the guy, he just worked about 5 hours with him.
January 22, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
John Q "we" you mean you and your other screen names? And you couldn't taunt a 4th grader with that weak a$$ smack boy. And learn to pay attention son, I answered the question, yes, it's as much the fault of the stupid black people in SC, as it is anyone else, for Dubya being in the WH. SC's electoral votes like ((always)) went the same way they always go, to the GOP, mostly because black Democrats in the state are too stupid to figure out how to beat them. And do you know why, because like I said earlier, blacks in that state are rock dumb stupid. Too stupid to see what everyone else sees a mile a way, that they're being manipulated by the GOP who is laughing their a$$es off at them. Growing up in GC and moving away, I unfortunately know how stupid blacks in that state are also, heck you can manipulate them by hanging a N***** sign on King street, attached to a Clinton sign, and 95% of them would claim tomorrow Clinton was in the KKK, despite 8 yrs of evidence to the contrary right in front of their faces..LOL..
January 22, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Test2007 (anonymous) says...
Maybe this is off topic but, I know "uniter" is a word (apparently). I just hate the way it sounds. It sounds wrong.
January 22, 2008 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
soapboxcom (anonymous) says...
I talk business with my wife. She gets/understands what I do, gives me input on things I ask her about, is there to support me on the bad days and celebrate the good days. She is bright, affable, engaging and intelligent in every respect--a Mensa member, even.
But this does NOT make her qualified to RUN my company--gives her NO hands-on experience, no "special insight" that she can claim as her own qualification to DO what it is I do for a living.
Hillary spends 20 years as a first lady (between Arkansas and Washington) and we're supposed to BUY that as experience? Ribbon cuttings and globetrotting photo ops do not a substantive policymaker make. The one cause she took on...she failed at miserably because she had the arrogance to believe that big insurance and big pharma weren't allowed a seat at the healthcare negotiating table.
She got her ass handed to her...but didn't go away empty handed--big pharma and big insurance paid her off handsomely in the late 90's...in fact, FUNDED the bulk of her carpetbagged campaign in New York.
I actually think she's done a fine job as a Senator...better than anyone could have expected. But if I hear one more yabbo claim "First Lady" is Presidential experience...then Giselle Bunchen is qualified to take Tom Brady's place as quarterback in the Super Bowl. (she's his girlfriend, after all...)
OH...and had I, or IF I, ever cheat on my wife...believe you me...she a strong enough woman to kick me to the curb, leave me behind, and exoriate me for being a lousy husband. Hillary possesses no such strength, as evidenced by two LONG TERM affairs (Flowers and Jones) plus the Oral Office incident that embarrassed the nation she so claims to love.
If she was running as the SINGLE female Senator from New York...I'd have a helluva lot more respect for her. She is politics as usual. Obama? Edwards? Perhaps these candidates represent politics we've never seen before.
What's worked better for you?
January 22, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NickD (anonymous) says...
Hillary Clinton was the winner last night. She caught Obama off guard and called him on some of his own misrepresentations.
The Tony Rezko indictment needs to come out so that voters are aware of Obama's dealings in IL with this shady character. Why is this important? Because if we don't call him on it now and he wins, then the Republicans will tear him apart.
It isn't fair to the democratic party to have a candidate that has not been fully scrutinized by the media the way that Hillary has.
Obama does need to explain his comments about Regan and the Republicans (how can this be good for any of us)? and his present votes and his vote on the bankruptcy bill.
I thought Hillary and Edwards did the best on this debate and I will stick with my candidate, Clinton who I know is tough and can get the job done.
January 22, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rmsems (anonymous) says...
NickD: I agree 100 percent. BO didn't even respond, went from one point to the next and when he had nothing to say, he just attack.
Hillary and Edwards were the best, but Clinton already knows her way around Washington and she is a tough cookie.
January 22, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flinsc (anonymous) says...
Anyone up for secession?
January 22, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TanyaPark (anonymous) says...
I AM SO DISGUSTED WITH THE CLINTONS. Anyone who doesn't realize how they are lying and distorting Obama's background and statement needs to GROW UP. The way they are behaving in this particular election is a NEW LOW even for them. They realize that Obama has inspired so many people that he may actually win the nomination, and this makes them furious. Hillary actually looks like the ENJOYS making Obama upset, and making him HAVE TO address her LIES. But Bill is REALLY LOSING IT. His red face, and his ranting and faving about Obama is really disturbing. Bill CANNOT STAND the fact that someone else is more popular than he is and that he is no longer in the limelight. Bill and Hillary can't compete with Obama on the issues, and on Obama's vision for uniting the country, so they deal with this situation in the only way they know how... that is by LYING AND CHEATING, AND BY POLARIZING THE VOTERS.
January 22, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newto843 (anonymous) says...
Wow, all the ignorant righties are at it today. I am not voting for Obama but with all this ridiculous propaganda it would only encourage me to do so. Keep living your hate filled lives and may all your daughters marry black men.
Go John go!
January 22, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jaysin (anonymous) says...
I would like to comment, but I do not know where to begin.
January 22, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
newto843, not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that all of the above is from the "ingnorant righties".
As one reads, forgive me...wades through all of the above all you can see is a lefty lovefest/dispute over who is more to the left.
January 22, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
Dear People: If Kucinich or Gravel would be allowed to debate, they would have the votes needed to win, because what they say is incredible. But more than that, what they have done, and are doing is far superior the action and words of clinton, obama, or edwards.
January 22, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
Give me a break, Obama out right lied on at least 3 occasions last night covering up his crap, and Clinton proved it this morning with an ad, where she caught him dead to the rights in an outright lie, he forget's apparently that people have video tapes everywhere now. Not only that even the stupid of the stupid wouldn't believe that Obama voted 130 times present just because he had a problem with those bills. LOL.. This dude is corrupt, and anyone with any sense can see it a mile a way.
January 22, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
captivated (anonymous) says...
Seriously, folks; with all hillary, oops, I mean hilarity aside, we need to do some hard thinking about where we want our country to go. No, forget about what we want, let's think about what we as a nation need to survive on this changing planet and who is best suited politically, socially and intellectually, to get us there. This may be the most important election of this century. Or, it may take that long to undo all of juniors screwups. God bless us, everyone. Have a nice day!
January 22, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JEdgmon (anonymous) says...
He will probably win SC by 60 pts though..lmao...
January 22, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
This is an insanely important time to elect Kucinich!
Do you all realize he will need to be president or the planet will end ;)
Just kidding, but it would be such a good thing for humanity to have Dennis Kucinich as the President, thank God he is already in Congress doing the good duty!
January 22, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
I know your all preparing to say "Dennis doesn't have a chance" but this is because he has been excluded from all debates, where if allowed he would sweep em up!
January 22, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
Did any of you know Barack Obama has fathered not one, but two black children?
Wait till the Bush push pollers get their hands on this. If it worked against McCain in 2000....maybe it can work again.
(*sarcasm doesn't work well on here huh??)
Obama 08'
January 22, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
512c:
You said Kucinich was doing the good duty....lol
January 22, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
algorelost (anonymous) says...
They should have left Colbert on the ballot, would have someone decent to vote for.
January 22, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCVOTER (anonymous) says...
I read Obama spent his college years fighting the Russians on the side of the Mujahideen. Does anyone know that?
I also read he led a group of student activists in the taking of the US Embassy in Iran in 1979...
It has to be true, I read it in an email sent out by CBN's own Pat Robertson...
(*sarcasm again...)
January 22, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gneubeck (anonymous) says...
Interesting that Hillary is fond of claiming to have been a key player in the formulation of Clinton Foreign Policy: 9/11 was a direct result of the Clinton Administration's feckless responses to the numerous Al-Qaida provocations and terrorist assaults against our national interests; as well as, Clinton's inexplicable temerity in refusing to take Osama bin Laden into captivity when offered several times by the Sudanese. Clinton then exercised little more than his jawbone as bin Laden trained literally thousands of terrorists in his Afghan camps. All of which, convinced bin Laden that he could strike our homeland with relative impunity. The potential for success in bin Laden's planned assault on our homeland was significantly enhanced by the infamous Gorelick memo which the Clinton Administration promulgated to prohibit any terrorist information exchange between our FBI and CIA intelligence operatives. However, history will record the most heinous assault on America's national security interests by a U.S. president as Clinton's transfer of our most advanced missile guidance technology to the CHICOM for a few campaign shekels. Does any rational person really want to return the Clinton cabal/scandals to the White House?
Greg Neubeck
January 22, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
Edwards has my vote.
January 22, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- UPDATE: Missing woman's fiance seen leaving scene of burned SUV, carrying a shovel
- Magnolia Gardens offering free dream wedding to contest winner
- Body of missing woman's fiance was found near handgun
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams
- Black women today: Strong. Resilient. Ambitious.
- MCDERMOTT COLUMN: Golf business has risks, rewards
- Ex-Boeing worker claims racism, retaliation in firing
