March 24th, 2008
04:58 PM ET

Who’s taking the moral high ground: Clinton or Obama?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/24/art.los.angeles.ap.jpg caption=]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is getting nastier the farther behind Senator Clinton falls.

Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor who endorsed Obama on Friday, is being compared to the traitor Judas. Clinton supporter and CNN political analyst James Carville said that Richardson's backing of Obama came "right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver." Richardson served in President Bill Clinton's administration and is now endorsing his wife's rival.

Richardson says he's still the Clintons' friend and refuses to "get in the gutter" like some Clinton people are doing. Richardson says that many in Clinton's camp think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.

Meanwhile Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell says Obama is trying to "have it both ways”, accusing his campaign of complaining about negativity while frequently going after Hillary Clinton unfairly.

Rendell, who is supporting Clinton, points to remarks by an Obama surrogate, General Tony McPeak, who compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy, the famous Communist witch hunter of the 1950s. McPeak was reacting to remarks by former president Clinton questioning Obama's patriotism.

On Friday, Clinton said quote, "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country"… suggesting that would be a match-up between Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

With more than four weeks to go to until the Pennsylvania primary, the Democratic Party continues along the path of self destruction, giving John McCain extra time to read up on the economy and learn the difference between Sunnis and Shia.

Here’s my question to you: Which of the two Democratic campaigns, Clinton or Obama, occupies the moral high ground?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

BJ from Seminole, Florida writes:
There is one candidate trying very hard to change the way politics are conducted. There is another candidate trying her level best to undermine all he is trying to do. You tell me.

Alexander writes:
Obama shows us something we haven't seen in a long time from a member of public office: integrity. How anyone can look at the Clinton campaign and say that they're running similar campaigns, I have no idea. When it came down to the two of them, I knew I had a tough decision ahead. The decision is no longer tough thanks to Hillary Clinton. She is her own worst enemy here.

Donna writes:
It is amazing that no one seems to have noticed while Obama is spinning his wheels, Clinton is actually coming up with plans to help the American people. Where is Obama? On vacation! Sounds like the Bush presidency – when the going gets tough, go on vacation!!! I want a president who does not duck for cover when things get tough, but who fights to overcome the hurdles and that person is Sen. Clinton.

Ryan from Champaign, Illinois writes:
Jack, Morality is in the heart, and cannot be adorned or shed for political reasons. That said, Obama has shown himself to possess a high standard in this realm, while Hillary is more than willing to trample him, her party and her country to win. If she cared for any of these things, morality included, she would put an end to this mess. But, she doesn't.

Emily from Georgia writes:
They are both politicians and want to win, so they both will do and say what they think will make them look good and the other person look bad. This is what politicians do and this is what the American people expect. If you are honest, you know what I am saying is correct. So why the question? Except maybe to see how many emails you will get that have negative responses associated with Hillary Clinton and to put them on the air.

William from Los Banos, California writes:
No Clinton has the moral high ground - except maybe Chelsea. I see where James Carville compared Bill Richardson to Judas. By implication he must be comparing Bill Clinton to Jesus. As a religious person, I can say this: I know Jesus; he's a very good friend of mine. Bill Clinton is no Jesus.

Filed under: Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton
soundoff (218 Responses)
  1. Jerry, Fayetteville Tennessee

    Obama. Duh.

    March 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm |
  2. Dave Brooklyn, NY

    Stop insulting my intelligence Jack. I know this is a trick question. A politician on high moral ground? No more possible than George W. Bush doing the right thing.

    March 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
  3. Mimi from PA

    Are you kidding? Clinton and her surrogates wouldn't know the "high ground" if they tripped over it. But, first, they'd have to crawl out of the mud to get to it. We can now paper the walls with all the low, nasty, mean-spirited, snide, false comments by Hillary, Bill, Ferraro, Rendell and others using everything from race to anti-patriotism smears. She lies about her own record while also lying about her opponent. This long Primary has had the good effect of really showing Hillary for what she is, and reminding us why the Clintons make us want to take a shower.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
  4. Harry

    With Bill Richardson being compared to Judas, apparently Clinton's camp thinks she's Jesus.

    Unfortunately, her and her camp's actions speak otherwise. Of course, her concept of truth is much different from mine.

    Carlisle, Ky

    March 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  5. Mark - Asheville, NC

    Neither. They are both desperate to win, as they should be, but I do not see a whole lot of "moral" high ground here on either side. The point is, which, if either, can beat McCain? I see Hillary having a weak chance, Obama having zero.

    If you want a candidate with a lot of moral worthiness, bring back John Edwards! But of course he was ignored to death, according to plan. Whew... don't have to worry about HIM anymore, he could have beat McCain!!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  6. W B in Las Vegas


    your kidding with this question, Eh?

    by default it has to be Obama because a combination of the words "Clinton" and "moral high ground" just does not compute.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  7. Al Jackson

    I think it is clear to most of America, the ones who do not let their personal support to a candidate bias them that the candidate that is and continues to take the moral high ground is Senator Obama. The mere fact that his campaign has been about breaking from the politics of old, democrat verses republican, and really trying to make a difference in Washington D.C., is a testament to him rising above politics as usual. I believe this equates for the American citizen, the everyday American citizen, a government for the people, by the people as it is intended. Look at the way Senator Obama built and planned his campaign, a grassroots effort that empowered the people, bringing back the disenfranchised voter and adding new, record number voters to the American political experience. That can only be good for the contry, empowering the stakeholders, us, the citizens not the coporations, cartels, lobbyist and major interest.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  8. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    Neither one! Obama has an advisor and former general,Merrill McPeak,who compares Bill Clinton to Joseph McCarthy,and Obama stands by his side and supports him. Hillary spreads half-truths and innuendo about Obama. I was hoping that the democrats,at least,would run a clean and respectful campaign. Once McCain gets in,watch out! The **** is really going to hit the fan!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  9. M. Brown

    Senator Clinton, for sure. At this time in her campaign and even in her life, she's not having to defend her preacher for anti-american comnments.
    All you Obama fans need to be careful what yo wish for...you might justs get it.
    Dallas, Tx.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  10. Toney Olton

    Obama clearly has the moral high ground. Clinton has waffled on too may issues, plays to the gallery, and is even willing to throw in "the kitchen sink" for goog measure. I hear Clinton "for the people" rhertoric, but see too many behaviors that are "for Hillary". Obama has withstood the all assaults and has consistently taken the high ground. March 18th and "A More Perfect Nation" defined the true leader in this campaign.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  11. April in texas


    Well I am an Obama supporter but both parties are acting like children at times. I would have to say Obama and the reason is simple... Hillary keeps changing the rules during the race exagerating on her trips like Bosnia, inflating her experience and the fact that some of her so called closest friends are supporting Obama. That in itself says alot.

    Austin Texas
    Obama 08

    March 24, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
  12. Ed Reed

    Americans should be outraged they were deceived into a quagmire that has unncecessarily killed 4,000 of our soldiers, drained our Treasury, weakened our military, while increasing the number of terrorists.

    Ed Reed
    Port Aransas, TX 78373

    March 24, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  13. Patti from Lansdowne, PA

    Neither. Both campaigns are guilty of trying to bring the other down. The thing that's disappointing to me is that Obama has tried to say that this is not what he's about. Clinton has never put herself up on that moral pedestal. Now we are seeing that there is no difference except for the fact that he's a media darling.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  14. George Wilson


    March 24, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  15. Toney Olton

    Obama clearly has the moral high ground. Clinton has waffled on too many issues, plays to the gallery, and is even willing to throw in “the kitchen sink” for goog measure. I hear Clinton “for the people” rhertoric, but see too many behaviors that are “for Hillary”. Obama has withstood the all assaults and has consistently taken the high ground. March 18th and “A More Perfect Nation” defined the true leader in this campaign. – Mount Vernon, NY

    March 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  16. Nicki

    John McCain. The other two are fast vacating the high ground.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  17. mel

    Hillary does by a long shot.
    Obama wants to play the poor me card any chance he gets
    and it really turns a lot of off. He likes to shot from the hip any chance he gets.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  18. DJ-IA

    clearly Hillary Clinton was on the Economic high ground with her speech today that of course got cut off by media biases. It's so sad that our media thinks we are too stupid to notice.

    Leaving us with Obama's team who could only offer up smear conference calls while on vacation in the virgin islands


    March 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  19. Ken, Annapolis, Maryland

    Hillary's certainly not taking the moral high ground.

    Hillary knows she can't win the nomination, but she is trying to beat up Obama and hand the election to McCain so that she can run again in 2012. That's because if Obama wins the election, Hillary can't run again until 2016, and Obama would have had the chance to be the one to implement healthcare and other programs she wants to implement.

    If Hillary really cares about those without health insurance more than she cares about her legacy, she would concede the election to Obama and help him implement it.

    But because she cares more about her legacy and power, she is trying to hand the election over to McCain.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  20. Michael Garrett

    Obama is on the high ground due to the silence of Hillary on the double standard being applied to Obama regarding association,etc.
    She could at least mention the 40 yr. association between the GOP and Jesse Helms, once a WRAL commentator, whose racist and documented comments have never been denounced by a single GOP leader. But, that would mean bringing focus back to legitimate issues.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  21. Arnold,WV

    Clinton stoops too low to take any kind of high ground.Morals and Clinton just don't fit into the same sentence.Obama has a much more moral high road if people would just leave him alone to campaign.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  22. R.S in Ohio

    Jack high moral groung in a campaign ? There is non and dosent look like there ever will be .

    March 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  23. Paulette-Cincinnati, Ohio

    It's obviously Hillary. Lets see........NO moral high ground + Obama + Wright + lies + deception + back stabbing Richardson = disaster for Obama.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  24. roger dowdle lockhart, tx

    At first, Obama had the higher ground, refusing to react to the clinton attacks of race, readiness, etc, but after she reached far enough into the gutter (frequently using surrogates) he was put in a position of having to respond in kind, although he has not gotten as nasty as the clintons. Generally, his attacks have been about her lies re experience, or to respond to her accusations (or her husbands). You can't really hold it against the clintons, they just don't know how to run a clean campaign. Lies and dirty tactics are just the hallmarks of the clintons.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  25. Paula in WI

    Obama is the one who has taken the high road regardless of all the things Clinton has attempted o pull.Also he has a way of smoothing ruffled feathers with words in a calm manor-something we need now in America.He doesn't lose his temper and never seems bitter or angry.Something Mrs Clinton seems to lack in.She reminds me of a female George Bush.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  26. Angie

    I would say Obama is taking the moral high ground. Clinton and her camp has proven that they would stoop to new lows in order to win. I agree with Obama, they don't like losing, especially after Hillary all but predicted she would win one year ago. Calling Richardson a Judas and playing the race card from the beginning proves the Clinton will do anything to get a 3rd term in the white house.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  27. Doug Pierson Tohatchi, NM

    I'm not sure that in politics there is a moral high ground. It just seems to me that Clinton and her supporters are angry, very very angry. There are comments that come out of that camp that seem to me to be angry and divisive. But who am I to say anything? But why are there so many seemingly divisive angry comments?
    As both Hillary and Bill have stated they are friends with Mr. McCain. You wouldn't suppose that they are trying to help him win? It sure looks like that. McCain could be "Pres" and Hill could be "VP" and Bill could just make deals and make money.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  28. Jimmy Smith

    Jack, I've had enough! I used to watch cnn for my news and political information. But now cnn and msnbc just let foxnews set the agenda. They cover all positive Republican event live. they go live, I flip to cnn and within 2 min. you follow. So thank god for the web, I got to the candidates websites for my information.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  29. marilyn

    ther is no moral high ground in politics

    Richardson has srewed his own state even – Clinton won the primary (people's vote) and he has stolen their vote

    on and on, clean campaigns are not reality – it's never about the PEOPLE – it's about THE prople

    March 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  30. Olga

    People around thge world are watching this US election. Obama stands on his feet, not on the shoulders of a former president. Obama has become a symbol of hope for a better world and a more humane US leadership. Clinton promises more of the Clinton-style politics: spin, spin, and more spin. He has been gracious in defeat, congratulating her on her wins, whereas she has ignored and rubbished his wins. I think this says a lot about both of them If she wins the nomination I, like many people around the world, will feel that the next four years are going to be business as usual for the USA around the world, rather than the new deal that maybe Obama could put forward were he be nominated and elected president.
    Bogota, Colombia

    March 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  31. Ted, Beaverton, OR

    Obama without question. The Clinton campaign is running from the depths of old style politics. They are pushing the agendaa that they want to maintain. The status quo, special interest/lobbyist influenced politics they think will thrive as never before under HIllary's rule.
    Obama wants to change that, and so does Gov Richardson; that's why he's been branded a traitor by the party influencers of the Clintons. But Bill Richardson is a far better American than the shallow thinker who said it gives him credit for.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  32. Anna Trimiew

    No question . . . Obama and his people are definitely fighting the cleaner campaign! Clinton has used sarcasm, ridicule, anger, low blows, and outright lies against her opponent.

    To his credit, Obama has responded to her attacks with swiftness and strength, and he has pointed out differences between them. But he has never resorted to Clinton's "kitchen sink" approach in defining her.

    Barack, who has affirmed Hillary and openly discussed her strengths, definitely occupies the moral high ground. Hillary, who can barely say a good word about Obama, is flailing around in the muddy mess she has created, struggling to survive.

    Rossville, GA

    March 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  33. John

    Jack...i know you want to be Obama's Press Secretery, but let's be clear, neither is on the moral high ground. They are both politicians and politicians can't get there. everyone wants to paint Hillary as Washington as usual, but we are starting to see that Obama isn't different.

    New Fairfield, CT

    March 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  34. richard smith

    i believe that mr obama has run a campaign that is on high moral ground.he brings out the selfless passion that so many americans will benefit from. i think he has done an almost unbelieveable job of keeping to the high ground. he has shone that he has a wonderful demeanor under pressure from a formidable political machine. he has the right personna to deal with our foreign and domestic issues in the future. i think he will be the best unifier of here at home and overseas. let's get behind our best candidate and be just half the person that i think he is.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  35. Kevin from Sacramento

    The Clintons has no road to victory, but, they travel full-speed down the load rad anyway. Hand-in-hand, they are driving our party towards a cliff.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  36. Olga

    People around thge world are watching this US election. Obama stands on his feet, not on the shoulders of a former president. Obama has become a symbol of hope for a better world and a more humane US leadership. Clinton promises more of the Clinton-style politics: spin, spin, and more spin. He has been gracious in defeat, congratulating her on her wins, whereas she has ignored and rubbished his wins. I think this says a lot about both of them If she wins the nomination I, like many people around the world, will feel that the next four years are going to be business as usual for the USA around the world, rather than the new deal that maybe Obama could put forward were he be nominated and elected president.
    Bogota, Colombia

    March 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  37. Robert, Santa Rosa, California

    Neither. Your question is a bit late; it would have made more sense a few weeks ago. Now the question is, "Who will win the race to the moral low ground.

    It seems that strategists of both campaigns have determined that there is not enough difference in their positions on the issues to win votes. So, they have abandoned the moral high ground and are now attacking each other personally and plummeting to the moral low ground. Clinton is well in the lead of that race. It looks like she has found one race she can definitely win! Sad. Tragic really.

    The democratic party desperately needs some leadership to get the party back to the moral high ground before the party is destroyed.

    What a cruel paradox if in the general election the republicans, after these last years of horrible abuses of power, now win the election because the democrats manage to “take the moral low ground.”

    March 24, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  38. Julia, Newton NJ

    I think Obama's campaign is on the high moral ground. Despite there being a few dustups with his former pastor, he and his campaign have stayed clean while Hilary and her campaign have trudged through the mud.
    By the way, tell Wolf I say happy late birthday!!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  39. Brad

    Is it OK for me to say I am glad to be on the republican side? Second question, is it ok to say I am glad to be white? I am affaid if I say ether I could loose business or this could be held against me for being something I am not.


    March 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  40. James

    James from Texas

    The Clintons is not only losing the race but it seem like they are losing IT. Everyday they are trying to change to rules. I started out a Clinton supporter but the more this go on the more they look like Bush. They
    don't care about any high ground.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  41. Daniel in Chicago, IL

    If either Clinton or Obama represent the moral high ground in this country then this country has clearly lost its understanding of morals.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  42. James D (Cary, NC)

    Is this a serious question? For the past several months people have criticized Obama for not attacking enough. Showing he can push back is hardly going nasty... especially compared with what folks have tried to pin on him.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  43. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    Moral is defined as; Of or related to conduct or character from the point of view or right and wrong. I'm positive that the Clinton fans will say that Obama is wrong and visa versa. Mrs.Clinton has been wrong and so has Obama but the person who develops true character is the one who openly admits it and then moves in a different direction to "change" the behavior. They are self-destructing and McCain is gaining. Now just ask Bill or Hillary, they are never wrong, oops guess they win the prize of no morals.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  44. Adam

    As dirty and divisive as the campaigns have been throughout the nomination process, is there even a high ground anymore? If you're already in the garbage pile no matter what ground you're standing on you still stink.

    Unfortunately Hillary has already dragged the eventual nominee down with her, stinking them both up.

    Miami, Florida

    March 24, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  45. Brian, Cincinnati

    Obama occupies the moral high ground, without a doubt. Clinton supporters will obviously disagree, but the facts are quite obvious. He has more delegates, more states, more popular vote. He has no need to go negative. He's winning.

    Hillary's campaign is the one that is going negative in an effort to destroy him. It's their only chance to 'win', bloody him so badly that super delegates give her the nomination. What Hillary fails to realize in her bloodlust to win the nomination, is that by destroying Obama, she'll leave herself unelectable in the general election as well. You know... that whole "winning the battle only to lose the war" tactic.


    March 24, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  46. Bob from Traverse city Michigan

    Jack I do not believe a legitimate comparison of differences about issues or a reviewing of an opponents "on the record" history is dirty tricks. Senator Obama's campaign has never mentioned sexual scandels.or shady land deals or sweetheart futures deals or any of the other blunderful and colorful tidbits lying in the wreckage that is the Clinton legacy. The Clinton's on the other hand have thrown muddy handfuls of race baiting, and innuendo at their opponent in a shameful display of selfishness and unbridled ambition. The Obama campaign occupies the higher moral ground and the only "Judas" I'm seeing is the Clinton campaign and their ongoing betrayal of the principles of the democratic party.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  47. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    My Mother used to say that the two most missed used words in the english language are, "I'm sorry". She was right as to build character we must admit we're wrong a much more difficult thing to do. Show me any politician that can admit being wrong and you'll find a president that gets one term in office. Of course they are destroying the democratic party and especially the Clinton's which just goes to show me they truly do not care about anyone except themselves. People in Penn. take off the blinders.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  48. WARD


    March 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  49. Natalie New Jersey

    Obama has done a terrific job of trying to run a positive campaign and others saw that as a threat and they hit him with everythign they had. The media said he had to hit back when he was quiet so now he is getting dragged into politics as usual.

    I lost all respect for Governor Ed Rendell when he said that the people of Pa would not vote for a Black man, anything he has to say means nothing to me.
    This is the 2nd time the Clinton have outright said McCain is better than Obama. They will stop at nothing, even if it means destroying the party, to get what they want.
    Richardson is right, if this continues, we will have 4 more years of Bush policies thanks to the Clintons. Bill and Hillary seem to be endorsing McCain.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  50. Mike S., New Orleans

    Neither Obama nor Clinton occupy the moral high ground. In fact, they both reduced the high ground into mud so they could sling it. To be fair, Obama has slung less mud, mostly because Hillary has a co-slinger working for her on the side.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  51. Johnny 5

    Jack will you please just look at the history of the Clintons. They have gone negative to the degree that is mind boggleing. If given the choice of having a 10% chance of obtaining the nomination means that they will destroy the party also, they will plunge head first with sharp elbows, low blows and outright lies. Damn the party, Clintons first, the world a distant second. Oak Lawn, IL

    March 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  52. MIchael "C" in Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: I have never regarded politics as the "arena of morals" but rather the "arena of interests." Morality usually adjusts to the political conditions, and if morality is the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike, I would have to give the edge to Obama.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  53. Chuck in Eugene Oregon

    Jack at this moment Obama is on the moral high ground. His campaign is not on the attack and is only responding to comments made by either the Clinton Supporter, her husband or her surrogates.
    "EX" President Clintons comments depending on who is and how it is read, eludes or infers that Obama is not Patriotic. He knows how to phrase his comments to say what he is not saying and using Hillary's words; "Shame on you Bill".
    Comparing Gov Bill Richardson Judas is completely unbelieveable and out of line. He made a decision after taking in all aspects of what is good for the American People, and he should be respected for that decision. It amazes me how quickly Sen Clinton's campaign can dismiss people as being insignificant and irrevelant. But then again she did that to many states during her campaign too.
    Unfortuantely, Obama is left no choice but to respond to comments like that and unfortuantely his response is coming from his surrogates when he should be responding himself. Somewhere along the line Obama will have to find his voice and do his own fighting, hopefully that will come soon and tactfully call her on the carpet without sounding ugly or negative. I at times feel sorry for him, because he is between a rock and a hard spot.
    Either way I am growing tired of it all, as I have with all past presidential campaigns.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  54. Eric

    It is strange to say Hillary Clinton is. Senator Obama has been desperate the past couple of days. Releasing pictures of Bill Clinton, who they painted as a racist, shaking hands with Wright, who verbally attacked both Clintons in his Church. Releasing the photo made Obama look worse. Throwing his grandma under the bus in the defense of Wright and calling her a "typical white person" also deducted points. They have also said of Hillary Clinton is "flawed", has "character issues", tried to hint that Hillary had in a hand in the passport scandal, said superdelegate should reflect the will of people, but he picked up endorsements from Mass, Ohio, Texas, California, and most recently New Mexico in states where Hillary won, he has given up on Pennsylvania because Hillary is expected to do well there I don't want a quitter in the White House I want a fierce fighter, and the worst thing an Obama surrogate accused Bill Clinton of McCarthyism while Obama stood there....staring off into space trying to look majestic. And with the media's continued help, especially yours Mr Cafferty, he disenfranchised two states that we can not even discuss anymore. I just find it interesting he had a TV spot running in once because it was nationally and he took off his name from the other's ballot when there would be no delegates rewarded and in his own words, "would not count". Don't his supporter deserve a chance to vote for him even if delegates are going be rewarded? He is way off from being a JFK or Bobby Kennedy.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  55. Zeppo

    It is morally wrong to let Florida's Republican law makers move up a primary date that gets millions of votes erased and yet Obama supports it because the disenfranchisement of the Florida voters helps him.

    It is morally wrong to imply that Clinton has mood swings, yet Obama's camp has no problem with that.

    Has Clinton come out and said that Barrack is lazy even though he himself has claimed it as his worst quality? Of course not, that would be wrong.

    Has Clinton pointed out that Barrack has low expectations of himself even though he said "no one in America expects the president to solve all their problems?" No, she hasn't.

    Is it morally wrong support Obama because he is black? I think so but just ask Obama supporter and major loser John Kerry, that’s what he said.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  56. Antonio in Los Angeles

    Jack, clearly the moral and ethical high ground has been secured and dominated by Obama. It is embarrassing that we couldn’t count on our top two democratic candidates to stand on moral footing together so to declare a nominee with confidence of the full party behind them. Remember when we wanted them on the same ticket, well at this point Clinton doesn’t even seem to be in the same party. She is effectively doing the job of the presumptive republican vice-president. Moral ground can not be found without a moral compass.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  57. jane atl

    Clinton is getting very very nastier. This is not the type of person who will be in command of chief. She needs to drop out of the race. I used to have a very big respect for her but now I do not. we need some one like Obama to unit this USA. I ws going to vote for Cliton but now I will not vote for her because of her nastier campany she is running.
    I will vote for Obama now.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  58. dan in mass

    There's an old saying, "I've been down so long even the bottom looks good". While both camps are guilty of stooping, Obama can no longer claim he's above the fray. Standing in the way of the re-votes, the Rev. , campaign finance/ deal with McCain. Momentum and moral high ground belong to Clinton right now and barring a serious incident she all but has the nomination locked up. Super-delegates know that in order to win you need all the states Hillary won. Obama should drop out now while there is still a chance for V.P.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |

    right now both obama and clinton are on high moral ground in spite of all the back and forth controversy. either on of them will defeat mccain in november. teaching john mccain the difference between the shia and the sunni is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  60. Mike

    Jack, Excuse me, but I don't think either one of the campaigns relate to, or even know what, moral high ground might be.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  61. Tom from Boston, Mass.

    Obama, by a country mile. He not only has run a much more respectable and honorable campaign, his speech on race was one of the best speeches by a leader in a long time. Clinton, on the other hand, is running a campaign marred by trench warfare and thinly-veiled racist comments on the part of some of her "supporters." As Bill Richardson noted in reacting to James Carvel's comparison of his endorsement of Obam as akin to Judas betraying Christ, the Clinton clan seems to have expected a coronation and is now furious that democracy is prevailing instead!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  62. James in Cape Coral, FL

    Obama has definitely been the one standing on the moral high ground. His attacks on Hillary have been, for the most part, in response to a negative Clinton ad or remark. From what I see Obama attacks her judgement and experience but has yet to refer to McCain as a better choice than his fellow democrat. Furthermore how can Hillary Clinton tout her endorsements from certain military generals and then turn around and call Bill Richardson's endorsement late and meaningless.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  63. Mary, Casa Grande, AZ

    Jack....its so clear that Billary is taking the low road! She says experience is the yardstick we should all use – but ooops!.....she doesn't really have any. She said Obama isn't good enough for President....and then when she thinks we aren't listening, she says maybe he could be her VP. She says that Florida and Michigan aren't that important, until it was clear that she was losing ground to Senator Obama, now she is blaming Obama for the delegates not getting seated! All he was trying to do was make sure that if re-do elections were held that they be fair and legal to everyone. What if she is faced with that 3 a.m call....will what she says on that call be replaced in a few days, weeks or months with...."what I really meant was....."

    March 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  64. Paulette Dallas,PA

    Neither Jack,after all this is politics we are talking about.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  65. Jawan, University of Arizona

    Obama occupies the highest moral grounds. Theres no question. Clinton has flooded voters up to their necks with lies and misleads. The person who refuses to play politics is most moral, Obama doesn't play politics.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  66. earnest haynes

    You can not mention the word moral and Clinton together! She or her husban will do anything and say anything to win the nomimation. How can you trust someone who agreeded that the Michigan and Florida primaries wote would not count but when she gets behind starts to demand that they count,very untrustworthy.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  67. Voter

    Hillary has taken the High road considering the media attacked her from the beginning. The television reporting in all media have not lived up to finding the truth out about all the candidates for voters to make a honest decision. No matter what the media has tried in the course of this campaign. Hillary has continued to remain Presidential.

    Obama has played the victim sensitive to all comments. The media has supported him in all statements televised. Americans are just now finding out about Obama and his support for his Reverend who clearly chooses to keep hate and anger alive in his sermons.

    Americans need to take a closer look at Obama, as President. He does not appear to be strong enough to lead and really bring Americans together. Do we really want a leader who really could split the country apart?

    March 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  68. Eric

    It is strange to say Hillary Clinton is. Senator Obama has been desperate the past couple of days. Releasing pictures of Bill Clinton, who they painted as a racist, shaking hands with Wright, who verbally attacked both Clintons in his Church. Releasing the photo made Obama look worse. Throwing his grandma under the bus in the defense of Wright and calling her a “typical white person” also deducted points. They have also said Hillary Clinton is “flawed”, has “character issues”, tried to hint that Hillary had a hand in the passport scandal, said superdelegates should reflect the will of people, but he picked up endorsements from Mass, Ohio, Texas, California, and most recently New Mexico in states where Hillary won, he has given up on Pennsylvania because Hillary is expected to do well there (I don’t want a quitter in the White House I want a fierce fighter) and the worst thing an Obama surrogate accused Bill Clinton of McCarthyism while Obama stood there….staring off into space trying to look majestic. And with the media’s continued help, especially yours Mr Cafferty, he disenfranchised two states that we can not even discuss anymore. I just find it interesting he said he did not advertise in Florida, but that is not true, he had a NATIONAL TV spot running. It was back when Florida and Michigan were still part of the United States. He took his name off from Michigan’s ballot when there would be no delegates rewarded and in his own words, “would not count”. Don’t his supporter deserve a chance to vote for him even if delegates are not going be rewarded? He is way off from being a JFK or Bobby Kennedy.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  69. truth seeker in Boston

    Barack Obama.... but will you print it?

    March 24, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  70. Red Dog from ND but now in Floida

    I meant the Jaded Princess that Hillary is

    March 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  71. Veronica in Richmaond, VA.

    Hi Jack, it is clear to a blind man, that the Clinton camp couldn't sink any lower. Senator Obama has run a wonderful campaign so far even while he's been hit with 4 kitchen sinks (GW,Rove,Bill, Hillary) & still he rise. He has also shown that he can manage money (He didn't have to len his self 5 mill). Has eneyone noticed every state that the Clinton's lose, they said they didn't count, I hope the other 10 States keep that in mind. Lastly, we see how the Clinton's feel about their friend too, Gov. Richardson, they treated him like trash last Friday. I hope the Super Delegates remeber that to Jack.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  72. Tina

    Hands down, Obama. He has yet stooped to the low level of mudslinging that Clinton has and I am hoping he stays the course and does not run a negative campaign cause that would stop the change phrase he has going. It would be the same of garbage that is known to come out of D. C.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  73. candi

    Obama. The Clintons and their gang clearly will lie, cheat or try to anyway i.e. Mich. and Fla. ,. They would sell any friends they have for a vote. It is about time people stood up to them. They are old news and should just fade like old soldiers.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  74. John Doyle

    Without a doubt, Sen. Obama. I didn't know the Clintons were so low and dumb but maybe that's what it takes to be a President. Look at President Bush. Sen. Clinton have a lot of experience in digging up dirt. My father was a pastor in the Church of God in Christ and we visited many, many churches and I heard a lot of crap it didn't agree with. "I am not my brother's keeper".

    March 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  75. Donn

    Clearly Richardson has the choice to support whom ever he wishes. What should be of concern are his statements of loyalty to Clinton competing with statements of support for Obama. What does that say about so called mexican loyalty. Why is he waffling? is there something else here we are not privy to? The real problem is that all of this "crap" filling the airwaves keeps interested Americans from learning about positions on substantive presidential issues.

    Las Vegas, NV

    March 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  76. George Vetnar

    The Obama campaign has the moral high ground, by far, if for no other reason than the fact in the beginning of this Presidential campaign they just were running a campaign based on the issues, change and hope then Hillary's campaign (with the help of Bill Clinton) began the "Politics as Usual" campaign of attacks on Obama, personally, as well as on his campaign. If there has been any "moral low ground" from Obama and his campaign, it is usually just in defending himself and his campaign from more "Hillary and/ or Bill attacks." Left alone from political attacks, Obama's campaign has been one of the most positive, inspirational political campaigns of our generation.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  77. Martha Lynne -- Los Angeles, CA

    The Clintons have never taken the moral high ground. Why would we expect them to start doing so now? And true to form, they're not.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  78. Brian From Fort Mill, S.C.

    Did you say "moral high ground?"
    Let's put it this way: If morality were money, both Bill and Hillary would be eligible for food stamps!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  79. Tom Carroll

    Jack, you must be kidding …. “campaign” and “moral high ground” in the same sentence, and you call yourself a journalist!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  80. Jan Kocot

    Hillary has the moral high ground. She is an open book, we know what her policies are and always have been. What do we know about Obama, except that more negative things keep coming out about him. Why is the media and everyone else afraid to say what Obama really is, a racist! Obama says he wouldn't have voted for the war, but has voted exactly like Clinton since he was elected to the Senate. And, let's remember this Obama doesn't want to allow Michigan and Florida to vote in the primaries. If he wins the primaries he better say out of my state (Michigan) because he will never have my vote now.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  81. Ryan

    It's a moot point. The Clinton supporters will say Clinton and the Obama supporters will say Obama. But by using evidence alone, it's clear Hillary is not taking any high ground because she is losing and using the "kitchen sink" strategy as a desperate, last-ditch effort to keep her campaign alive.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  82. Michael NY, NY


    Although I believe each candidate has representatives that are in the process of slinging mud back and forth, Obama definitely has taken the higher ground in the public discourse. You only need to look at the Jeremiah Wright issue to understand why. When confronted with a political liability, Obama didn't pander and appease the voters but rather attacked the issue and stated his stance and offerred America a different lens through which to speak. Hillary, on the other hand, has admittedly spoken to superdelagates about this issue by stating it hurts his electability even though this man was invited to the White House by none other than her husband during his "moral crisis". The Clintons are pathetic. America deserves better.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  83. Ron Christman


    Why would you even ask this question? Clintons and moral high-ground in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Since Iowa there hasn’t been an opportunity to twist the truth, parse a statement, or throw out an unfounded innuendo that the Clintons and their race-baiting, fear mongering minions haven’t taken. The highest ground that they have ever reached is somewhere in the swamp in James Carville’s backyard. They have done it for so long that the media gives them a pass because everyone is used to it from them.

    Ron Christman
    Washington, PA

    March 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  84. Alston

    I saw Carville with his wife on the Tonight Show and noted that their mentality is 'if you can't beat them, join them'...apparently they are under the impression that Hillary is unbeatable.

    Carville's statement liking Richardson to Judas is typical of the 'gutter' tactics that have come to be the trademark of the Hillary campaign.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  85. Ricky Norwood

    Moral Ground…Let’s see: Senator Barak Obama has addressed the race issue along with other important issues in a very honest way. That’s the leadership we deserve and need. I challenge Senator Hillary Clinton to discontinue being silent on the race issue and at least make a televised, bold and brave statement that she too has the leadership to appeal to all Americans and the world that she believes race has no part in this campaign and the time has come for us to focus on the real issues of this political season. Honestly, I think this is a challenge that will go unanswered by Senator Clinton because her inaction thus far speaks to her true nature. The only way to put this race issue to rest is for Senators Obama and Clinton to show a united front on this issue NOW (they are both Democrats right?).

    As for the media, especially FOX News Channel, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the same challenge for Senator Clinton go to you all as well. Will you report this, I highly doubt it.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  86. LISA, Miami, FL

    Obama has always taken the moral high road. His campaign cannot be accused of being negative merely defending themselves from the constant pettiness and attacks of the clinton campaign. And those attacks will not soon end. This is becoming ridiculous at this point because the media and the party are afraid to do to clinton what they did to huckabee which is strongly encourage her to let it go already and let the democrat and republican get to focusing on the general election.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  87. Sue, Bloomington, IN

    Clintonian. The Clintons have their very own word that means the opposite of taking the moral high ground.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  88. Penny

    Holary Clintion. Duh!! She's a girl and we all know that girls rule!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  89. Kevin- Webster, MA

    Have you not been watching the Clintons? Which campaign gets more Pinnochio's ? Morals .... Clintons I don't think so! Obama wins this one hands down!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  90. phillip, monterey ca

    Jack ,

    The Obama camp has run a much better moral, ethical and clean campaign. They only seem to be going negative at this moment because they have to respond to all the negativety the clintons are throwing at them remember the "kitchen sink " . it puts the obama camp on thin ice because when they respond they seem just as negative but when they say nothing they seem weak .

    phillip in monterey ca

    March 24, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  91. Katiec

    Dear Jack,
    There seems to be no moral high ground for the Clintons.
    The tactics they have resorted to these last few weeks
    have taken away any of the respect I once had. There is
    nothing moral about their distortions, accusations and and
    politics as usual.
    It is so sad that they have resorted to this. It harms the
    Democratic Party, the campaign and the American voters.
    One outlandish example: Barack Obama is responsible
    for the MI/FL debacle. When the DNC issued the warning to
    these two states she supported it. But, when she decided it
    would be to her advantage for a rerun she is not only pushing
    it, she points fingers and denounces everyone who does not
    agree with her "flip flop".

    March 24, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  92. don

    I don't think either is taking the high road any more! Obama was early on, but the Clinton campaign clearly makes this impossible with their lies about Obama and their opinions about McCain and Clinton having the experience and the patriotism and Obama not! With a fellow democrat like this, who needs enemies. People can only be lied about and decitfully made to look bad before they have to fight back!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  93. PAULA, Pennington Gap, VA

    Obama, without a doubt; that is a 'no-brainer'.
    The damn media always try to 'spread-the-blame-around' in its pathetic attempt to look "objective" – – it has been termed "DUMB OBJECTIVITY" !
    Nobody is being fooled!

    March 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  94. Dimitrios, in Laurel MD

    Jack, finding the moral high ground in a political campaign is as much an exercise in futility as finding WMD in Iraq. The question we have to ask ourselves is who is more guilty of being a hypocrite? In the final analysis, I don't think anyone ever expected anything other then what we are seeing from the Clinton camp, but Obama preaches a different kind of politics but delivers little different. You can't change a leopard's spots, no matter how much you try and dress them up and sell them as something else.

    March 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  95. Celene (Penn.)


    Shes a manipulative bully, she is no representative for women, she is no representative for the American workers, all she really will do is use the American people to get elected and then do whatever she wants...... she really is a true conservative!

    Shes not Bill and never will be!

    OBAMA '08 firght for the Moral High road, the economy and for strong women everywhere (i.e. in reference to Michelle Obama)

    March 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  96. Skipp Porteous

    Barack Obama isn't the Messiah, but he's the closest thing we have. He's showing us, not telling us, how a politician can take the high ground.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  97. Gary, Madison WI

    Obama has the moral high ground by far. The only time he loses it is when he has to defend himself against Hillary's attacks. He needs to maintain his composure on focus on the positives of his campaign (as he's done 99% of the time) and avoid being dragged into the mud. He was so good at that early on.

    And to those saying Obama will lose to McCain... the only way that will happen is if Hillary continues her already-lost campaign past the Pennsylvania primary and divides the Democratic Party further. As someone else said, it sounds to me like she just wants a shot in 2012, and doesn't really care about the Democratic Party OR the American people.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  98. Brian Lipchik

    Moral High ground and Politicians is oxymoronic.....sort of like military intelligence......or jumbo shrimp.......
    That being said , however........Sen. Obama's entire campaign has been predicated on keeping and maintaining a "positive viewpoint."
    He was doing that until the Clinton's, both Bill and Hillary started down the road of negativity in S. Carolina and continued through super tuesday culminating with the "kitchen sink" strategy. He had no choice other than to fight back a little.
    There is no moral high ground here, there is just low brow political gamesmanship attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Who started it? After Hillary realized her "Coronation" was being de-railed, her campaign went negative first, and has been dirty ever since.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  99. Sharon, Indiana

    Well, to be honest, they both play politics. Senator Obama's campaign has been much more negative than many believe, and it is only a matter of time before the truth comes out. It is already out on the blogs, perhaps it is time for CNN to catch up.

    You know, it's going to be very hard for you to continue to refer to him as refreshing, because all of his connections from Chicago are going to pull him down into a cesspool pretty soon.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  100. Nate, Maryland

    Jack, it's clearly Hillary. Obama is the biggest hypocrite and is a crooked politician. Change? Change what, Obama? The man is just a fool.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  101. Connie Mitchell

    Jack, the Obama camp has been trying to take the high ground. But if you have the Clintonites attacking with surrogates day, after, day, after day – about his former pastor, his name, his race, his patriotism,
    what else can Obama do but to go on the defense.
    Also, why does CNN continues to play up the Obama-Wright issue. It puts a negative on Mr. obama, this is simply unfiar.I sn't it time the media give Mr. Obama a break and focus attention on the real issues that are affecting the US???
    Also, why is CNN so soft with John McCain, who has said so many gaffes and has told so many untruths. His recent trip – wasn't it a campaign trip – why ins't CNN investigating the trip and see where the moneis came from ????? Thank you.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  102. Kim

    The further we get away from Mrs. Clinton getting the nomination the nastier her campaign gets. I am a very strong Obama supporter but there have been a few things that the campaign could have gone without doing. But, at the end of the day it is the "I'll do and say anything to get elected" strategy of the Clinton campaign that I fault for any and all nastiest in the Democratic primary.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  103. Brooke

    Obama. I think it is quite clear that when the campaigns began he sought out to run a clean and different kind of campaign. Unfortunately after Clinton's kitchen sink efforts and a backlash criticizing Obama of not being tough enough to face McCain in the general, his campaign was forced to try and draw some form of counter attack. The efforts clearly would not be considered "taking a good shot" by the Clinton Campaign, yet they feel no qualms in lashing out at the remarks as full blown attacks.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  104. Vinnie Vino

    At this point in the race both the Obama and Clinton teams are all in the gutter together sling mud, playing dirty politics. This is leaving the moral high gound for John "McSame" McCain. In the end Hillary and Barack will have to unite, like two super heros, to form a rightous dream team in order to treminate any hope the Republicans have of four more years of McSame policies...

    C.I., New York

    March 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  105. Susan, Cary, NC

    Obama – this is very sad what is happening, I sympathize with Governor Richardson entirely, one can only imagine the tone and wordage on that call.

    Obama has the moral high ground with his demeanour, tone and how he spoke so eloquently on race in America.

    Jack, will the DNC step in before it is too late for the Democratic Party?

    March 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  106. Len, Colorado

    Senator Obama.

    Senator Clinton and President Clinton keep endorsing John McCain.

    They are dividing the Democratic party and unfortunately, people are buying it....Such an important election. We waited 8 years and now we are going to have 4 more years of Bush policies....What a shame!!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  107. onenibble

    Jack, Hillary has the high ground. Obama is a product of Rezco and the racist church he attends. Bill Richardson sold out, not like Judas for 30 pieces of silver but for a chance at vice president. I thank Bill Richardson could probably do the Mexican Hat Dance while Ted Kennedy sings a Mexican Lullaby. The big news today is Hillary's speech on the economy which I haven't seen a lot of news about on CNN. Hillary actually understands the economy, something the other candidates do not have a clue about.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  108. Stephanie

    When I hear the name Hillary Clinton , my mind goes back to White Water. Oh yeah!! She's got experience and her record speaks for it's self, but it's not the knid we want used in the White House. I just cant trust this lady. If it wasn't for the name Bill Clinton she would have dropped out by now. So in my opinion Obama has the high road and Hillary should get off the road altogether.
    Texas Talk...

    March 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  109. H Walker

    Obama has the moral highground – he is a man of great integrity.
    Hillary Clinton has the look of a deer caught in the headlights. It's over for her campaign – who's going to tell her to step down and maintain her dignity? A graceful exit would salvage her reputation – just.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  110. Cindi DeSpelder Traverse City Michigan

    Clearly Obama has the moral high ground by any measure. Beginning with his campaign financing which does not rely on PACs and lobbyists, to his even temperment in the face of the Clinton attacks. Clinton will say and do anything if she thinks it will help her politically . She is constantly re-writing history, hoping no one will notice. She did not care about Michigan and Florida voters until she was losing. Her own web site admits they thought not seating our delagatest was "no big deal" in January. She never said caucuses were "not democratic" until she started losing all of them. She is 100% political animal which is not what the voters are hungry for. Now she says she should be the nominee because she can "carry the big states" when everyone knows that young people will stay home in droves in November if she is the nominee and it is Deomcrat turn-out that will matter then, no who the voter's first choice may have been. I am a white woman close to Hillary;s age and a former Hillary supporter. Her campaign has disappointed be terribly.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  111. Patricia

    When the "water boy" for the Clinton campaign called Bill Richardson Judas, that was it for me. Sen Obama has the moral high ground. How stupid could the "water boy" be?

    March 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  112. Patty from MS

    Well, Hillary lied about NAFTA and Hillary lied about Bosnia. There are news videos and news reports that prove she lied, but she will still say she did not lie. The more it is pointed out to her that she can NOT win, the more she trashes Senator Obama or comes up with another lie about why she should be the next president. Bill said no one did more for the Gulf coast area of MS after Hurricane Katrina than Hillary...well, I lost my home and everything in it to Katrina and except for the first week after the hurricane when the roads were impassable, I have been here and that is the first time I have ever heard her name mentioned in the same sentence as Hurricane Katrina. Lies, lies and more lies.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  113. Audacity of Hype

    Obama's group is getting desperate. Obama has been caught lieing one thing after another. Now his camp is creating distractions with the passport issue to throw everyone off the wright thing. Even the latest blue dress comment is another distraction to lessen the intensity of the Wright/"typical white person" flak.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  114. Julie from Ohio

    It has to be Obama. Look, the worst things found on Obama are snippets of a pastor's sermons. If he desired, his campaign could bring up the Monica sex scandal, the HC senatorial fund raiser in California which should be shown over and over on TV {look it up on youtube people, her donations which she refuses to return from a corp being indicted for many cases of sexual discrimination and misconduct, whitewater, her "stories" of her "dangerous" Bosnia visit, her Ireland peace negotiations, her own words in her book that her worst crisis was when she found out about the Monica affair and her reaction was to just freeze and cry {perhaps that is the 3:00 am phone call she refers to.} People are forgetting that the Clintons are willing to throw the entire Democratic party away if Hillary can't win. Me or McCain should be her motto. She is running a mud slinging campaing and just wait, if she were to somehow get the nomination...the Republicans won't let ANY of her past alone. They will make mudslinging look like a bubble bath. And really, making a fuss about who gets the first question in a debate? What will she do when she is in a TRUE conversation with foreign leaders? Whine...why did you ask France first? And I voted for Bill...twice...and was heading toward Hillary...until.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  115. Walter S. Hrynkiw

    In politics, I don't think there is a high moral ground. A politician will do what he or she needs to do to win. It still concerns me that B. Obama compares his grandmother to his pastor and his wife was poud to be an American for the first time. I hope these are not her or his real feelings.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  116. Kwame

    The Clinton's have been deplorable. They continue to throw out haymakers and then cry when the Obama campaign calls them on it. Bill Clinton in Charlotte for example, it is an insult to the intellegence of all Americans for them to say that Obama's absence from the list of those who love this country was not porpuseful. They continue to discount all of Obama's victories as either liberal in all-white states where he wins, or because he's black in states with more than 10% Black population. I am ashamed at their conduct as a democrat.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  117. Jeannie, PA

    Obama–oh wait a minute. . . isn't he the one who attended a church lead by a minister who's a racist and America hater, and said he wasn't there for those sermons, then said he was, then said his typical white grandmother used racial epithets against blacks? Nobody really knows who the real Obama is but most commentators and many Americans have jumped on the Obama bandwagon just cause has makes those pretty speeches he learned how to give at Harvard. Trouble is, once you come out of the coma he puts you in during his speeches you really don't know what he said except he's going to change things. Will we all have to go to churches like the one he attends if he's elected? Eeeeek!!!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  118. concerned american

    Obama couldn't get much lower on moral grounds haveing Pastor Wright as his friend and mentor.

    I guess Obama could go just a wee bit lower morally by becoming friends with Pastor Wright's idol, Louis Farrakhan.

    That makes Clinton the candidate that is taking the moral high ground.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  119. Ted

    James Carville has been around for a long time and like you he is very outspoken and he says what he wants .Given that nothing he said is worse than the minister Wrights comments.But yet you never mentioned anything about that .But I am here to tell you Obama is loosing the white vote that he desperatley needs .Especially the typical white woman comment .

    March 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  120. Lori Iowa

    I just read your other questions you are going to be asking....seems to me that Obama cannot get much dirtier then he is right now and I am starting to think that he has offered not only Richardson but the entire CNN network, cabinet positions. Keep it coming, because believe me Hillary will win this election and then what are you going to do Jack? I hope you Retire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  121. Karen

    I will answer your question by saying that I used to be an Obama supporter, but I am now 100% for Hillary Clinton.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  122. Jamie

    Clintons don't know what the moral high ground is. Obama is doing his best to stay dignified but you have to hit the bully back sometime. Carville is the master of nastiness.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  123. Noel Bynum, Winston Salem

    Hillary is bc she is being honest about her differences. She is just asserting diffrences, but not attacking his character. Obama is insulting her morals and personality bc he can't challenge her credentials, intelligence and resume. He is mudslinging at it's finest.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  124. Ric

    Obama is Anti American. I'd love him to explain to John Mc Cain why he doesnt say the Pledge of Allegiance. Or why his wife wasn't proud to be an American until recently. Better yet, maybe Obama can explain what a "typical white person" looks like. (So we can spot them on the street). And lets not forget why Rev Wright was uninvited to Obama's initial announcement back in January 2007. Could it be that Obama knew all about the sermons, and they just might lose him the election? Folks, get ready for President Mc Cain. The lesser of the 3 evils. Go figure!

    Obama '08 = racist church, anti American.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  125. Cathy

    I'd say the Obama Campaign, despite the huge learning curve they have had to go through, atleast they're learning. The only way the Clinton Camapaign seems to gain high groud, moral or otherwise, is by clawing, kicking and thrashing at anyone or anything that seems to get in their way- they're just plain obnoxious! Cathy, Bridgton, Maine

    March 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  126. Willis, Texas

    It is getting ugly - really ugly. It's a rock fight!

    Of course, Camp Hillary is always the instigators. They throw rocks and don't expect to have rocks thrown back! They should just shut up and mind their business!

    Chinese proverb: Man who throws rocks should look for cover and expect bigger rocks returned!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  127. Eric R.

    As much as I would like for the answer to be "neither," I suspect that the general perception we can gather is that Sen. Obama has been pressed onto the defensive with this sudden emphasis on his church. While the Clinton campaign may not be to blame for launching the attacks, Sen. Clinton is not demonstrating any moral superiority in the matter – by saying nothing to help defend his personal integrity and return this election to actual issues, she seems perfectly content to allow mudslingers to have at him, all while standing just out of range of the mess herself.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  128. John in Louisville

    Good question. Not because it's hard, but because anybody who answers Clinton shows the rest of us that they value loyalty above reason. The honest Clinton supporters will tell you that they like her because she fights "hard" (euphemism for dirty), which they think is essential in politics these days. I just hope they're wrong, because Obama has shown with his race speech that he'll take the high road – try and speak the hard truths – rather than operate under all the old political calculations.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  129. Craig

    Jack. Stop kidding.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  130. Michael Obodo

    When you look at most of Hillary's surrogates, you see the old Washington..she hides behind this breath of fresh air crap, just waiting to be elected before we see the real Hillary..Obama in for the sure the one on the high ground. watch out for the riot, mayhem, and unrest in America if the nomination is taken from him by the Clintons loyalist that are superdelegates..Jack make it known to the Clinton through your show that they should drop out..cos that's what they would have advised Obama if it were the other way round..God bless your fearless straight forward comments..we all wait to watch you errday Hommie..

    March 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  131. Mike Steele

    Since the "moral high ground" in politics is measured benieth sea level, I think they are both above water. A question I would like you to ask is how has american journalism become so comatose they can only look into mud slinging which has already been covered? Is there anyone that can go out and get a story anymore? Send some one to ask John Edwards who he endorses and make him answer. That might be a good story. Or simply ask some policy questions.
    Sick of all of it in Carlsbad ~

    March 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  132. Shannon from Washington

    Only one player in this race is fighting dirty. The one losing!! Senator Clinton is a sore loser and is desperate to obtain the position that she self-righteously believes she deserves. This is very tiring to watch and I think she hopes to wear him down. I do think this is a good test of his presidential character in seeing how he responds. Unfortunately there are too many "Hillary's" out there and they must be dealt with without having to sink to their low standards.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  133. Donna Richardson

    It is amazing that no one seems to have noticed while Obama is spinning his wheels, Clinton is actually coming up with plans to help the American people. Where is Obama? On vacation! Sounds like the Bush presidency – when the going gets tough, go on vacation!!! I want a president that does not duck for cover when things get tough but who fights to overcome the hurdles and that person is Sen. Clinton.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  134. B. Gray

    Neither have the moral highground. Neither candidate is nasty directly, they just have their people be nasty for them. This is quite true of both candidates.

    They would be best to have one step aside now, with the promise of being the running mate to the other. If they continue this battling, spend all their time fighting each other versus preparing their campaign against McCain, then they just might loose the Political Superbowl at the end of their primary playoff season....

    March 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  135. John

    Jack.......Stop wasting our time and yours with such an irrelevant question. If there was any measure for morals in this campaign, I think the media will get the lowest ground for fueling divisiveness by capitalizing on half truths, sound bites, and other non issues instead of capitalizing on the issues of the moment. I have to tell you Jack. Whether you are patriotic or not, it is not hard to realize that in two or three decades, America might simply not be the greatest country in the world, if we continue to cruise down the path of self destruction, and the media playing major role in airing information in a very lazy and irresponsible manner.So much for freedom of speech.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  136. Keith S from Wisconsin

    You wanna hear something that is really fair?

    The Clintons don't even pay for their own mortgage. Us..The taxpayers pay for it. The Clintons charge the US Government the exact amount for the "expense" to keep the Secret Service at their residence...AMAZING!!!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  137. Ryan, Champaign IL

    Jack, morality is in the heart, and cannot be adorned or shed for political reasons. That said, Obama has shown himself to possess a high standard in this realm, while Hillary is more than willing to trample him, her party and her country to win. If she cared for any of these things, morality included, she would put an end to this mess. But, she doesn't.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  138. Ed, DC

    I have not read one article or heard one “expert” describe Hillary Clinton’s probability of being nominated as anything but a long shot. The only way those experts go onto say that she has even a snowballs chance is to destroy the Democratic Party.

    I would say considering she is obviously comfortable with that destruction, Senator Obama has the high ground regardless of what they say about each other.

    With the Clinton campaign saying only Hillary or John McCain are fit for the job it would appear that she could care less about the party and only her candidacy.

    I am not sure you can go any lower.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  139. Gigi in Tampa

    Obviously a joke, Jack! Regardless of whether Obama supporters tout his "pristine" integrity, that man has grovelled with the best of them! I'm sure he sat around with Rev. Wright and his other buddies talking down 'bout all those typical white people. Which is, by the way, a very hypocritical statement for someone who professes "fairness." The point isn't one of moral high ground or not; it's about emotions. People believe in a candidate and things get said in the "heat" of emotions; everybody, and I mean everybody, is guilty of it. In my opinion, you all, the press, spend a whole lot of time on measly stuff.
    And further on that point...
    I am so tired of pundits, grabbing at straws, trying to interpret campaign strategies and words taken out of context, as if to have E.S.P., like I should believe the nonsense.
    AND I am so tired of Obama telling me that my country is in shambles, that we need change. Well, what the "H" does that mean? Everyday my neighbors and I go to work, feed ourselves, and manage to live in this blessed nation, filled with free-willed thinkers, plentiful resources, and organized cities. What is in shambles is Iraq, a nation that our ELECTED officials demolished. I was and am against the war, but we cannot turn our tails to those people, whose daily lives are in ruins. It is our responsibility to right the wrongs our nation has done. Obama's "let's get out fast" approach is dishonorable and irresponsible. Which shows me that the guy is all about words to please people and hasn't thought through the consequences. We need a president who has, that's Hillary and if she's not the candidate, I'm defecting from the Democratic Party, cause Obama is a Mistake!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  140. Connie Mitchell, Rockville, Maryland

    Jack, why doesn't CNN and other media outlets leave the black church alone. Our faith is under attack by the media. Enough is enough. Continually painting Mr. Obama and showing news clips of Rev. Wright and his church, is downright unfair, and this is exactly what Rev. Wright was talking about. The media has finally showed itself that Rev. Wright seems to be right after all.

    CNN is becoming more and more like dirty Fox News with hater Sean Hannity and company.
    Thank you.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  141. Cain Dallas, Tx

    At least we know where Hillary stands. Obama wasn't in church, and now he was. Twenty years of listening to Dr. Wright preach and he "never heard a thing..." Pleeeze! I would follow Hillary any day, but particulary today after Bill Richardson joined Obama. What a coat-tail riding jerk he is. Hope his rug doesn't fly off!

    Go Hillary!!! We are with you all the way!!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  142. Mike

    I believe Senator Obama has taken the hghest ground possible considering the attacks the other camp has made. As for Senator Clinton, the only way she will ever take any 'high ground' is if she learns how to hike. It is silly for the Clinton camp to accuse Obama of being negative when James Carville, a top Clinton advisor, has just linked Bill Richardson to the betrayal of Judas. Give me a break.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  143. jan

    high moral ground – politics

    it's an oxy-moron

    March 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  144. CWT from my car

    I think that it's time for someone to play King
    Soloman and see which candidate is most concerned with the good of the party.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  145. Robert

    Now just a minute here Jack,

    Your lead into your question is laced with examples of the Clinton organization and/or supporters "attacking" Barack Obama. For weeks you have used this space to lambaste Hillary Clinton at least two thirds of the time. So your question is phrased in such a way that you get the response you want. It wasn't former President Clinton who said that for the first time in his life he was proud to be an American, it was Michelle Obama. It wasn't Hillary Clinton sitting in church and listening to a tirade of hatred toward this country coming from the pulpit and then dismissing those remarks as those of that "funny, old uncle", it was Barack Obama. Oh and by the way Jack – how about taking the moral high ground yourself and being a little less biased toward one side over the other. These tirades are rather unbecoming a journalist such as yourself and truly beneath you.

    North Port, Florida

    March 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  146. Alexander Haupt

    Obama shows us something we haven't seen in a long time from a member of public office, integrity. How anyone can look at the Clinton campaign and say that they're running similar campaigns I have no idea. When it came down to the two of them, I knew I had a tough decision ahead. The decision is no longer tough thanks to Hillary Clinton. She is her own worst enemy here.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  147. Warren Davis Tampa, FL

    Wasn't it the Clinton campaign that decided before Texas and Ohio that they would throw everything but the "KITCHEN SINK" at OBAMA???? Now they are accussing the Obama campaign of the samething (ironic) LOL I say "If you can't take the HEAT HILLARY get out of the kitchen or better yet the RACE"

    March 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  148. Ed Starbucks

    Clinton is surely the leader of negativity, and openly admitted it as a necessary tactic as early as Bill's 1980's Arkansas campaigns. She says so in a filmed interview.
    Obama has joined in, I believe, only out of necessity so he won't constantly be kicked around. He'll look weak and probably lose if he doesn't respond somehow to her attacks.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  149. lpier2

    It's great watching this. Obama get's to call everyone who dare attack him racist, and gets away with it. Clinton has every word she says twisted. If you look at the complete statement Bill made, he did not question anyones patriotism. It has been my considered opinion that the networks picked their candidate after Iowa. Everything else is just filler for the Story (Obama) So the only answer is Obama, because that is how you all want it. I personally would be happy with either candidate. I believe they are both ready. I continue to believe that Hillary has the best chance of winning the general election. Obama still has not shown that he can get 270. The only good thing to come out of the past week is that the assumption that Obama was going to go through this thing without coming out on the other end just as "evil" (in the eyes of the right) as Hill and Bill has been put to rest, I just wish Dems would stop hating and pay attention to what is going on. The general election is coming, there will be no caucuses, proportional delegation, or super delegates. Dems will not win South Carolina, Georgia or Utah. The deciding factor is who can win, not who I like. If Dems ask themselves that question honestly, the choice is simple.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  150. Angelos, Munich

    Jack, in the words of Bill Richardson, Obama appeals to the best in us. Yet, he and his staff lack experience in Washington tactics: Clinton is throwing to him the same kind of critisism that her husband received in 1992 and he cannot make up his mind whether to follow along the same path or to remain the inspiration he's been so far. I would like to think that America is mature enough to see the difference; however, the same America elected George W! Twice!!!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  151. BR

    In the game of politics no one takes the moral high ground. It's all relative. The one who is making no bones about taking the moral low ground in this race would certainly be Senator Clinton. Obama and McCain have shown explicit integrity when needed, like when both McCain and Huckabee spoke about Rev. Wright and when Obama through McCaskill expressed to pass a law to allow foreign-born McCain to run for the office of President. Clinton on the other hand takes every cheap shot she gets. No moral high ground there. Good thing is that she is making no bones about it. It's called politics, folks.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  152. Jill

    Neither; however since Barack promised a "new" kind of politics and was supposedly above all this, then he should be embarrassed! I'm absolutely seeing him for the politician (ouch!) he really is, and isn't that a dissapointment!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  153. Eric R. Boston MA

    As much as I would like for the answer to be “neither,” I suspect that the general perception we can gather is that Sen. Obama has been pressed onto the defensive with this sudden emphasis on his church. While the Clinton campaign may not be to blame for launching the attacks, Sen. Clinton is not demonstrating any moral superiority in the matter – by saying nothing to help defend his personal integrity and return this election to actual issues, she seems perfectly content to allow mudslingers to have at him, all while standing just out of range of the mess herself

    (sorry, moderators. forgot my location)

    March 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  154. concerned american

    With Obama teaming up with Reverend Wright, the lowest rock bottom racial, radical screaming maniac, Senator Clinton would have to be the candidate taking the moral high ground.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  155. William, Oklahoma

    What are you talking about? Politics is politics. You can't get elected unless you highlight your rivals shortcomings. It seems to me that these naive topics seem spew forth to highlight your political position. But what do I know, I am a "typical white person" .

    March 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  156. Zoltan Mayer

    Unfortunately neither.
    I spent the last eight years of Bush as a registered independent, a switch from being a republican party county chairman, now backing John McCain, you might say a "full circle"
    Obama and high moral ground is becoming a contradiction in terms, the more I learn about him.
    Lots of "pretty talk", and being a "rock star ( for democrats) and "naive" but "infectious" hope is just not what we need in a President.
    But I was willing to consider him, especially because of the last eight years of Bush, and the harm this country suffered economically and politically under his presidency.
    But Obama "hiding out in his church", associating with the most extreme political figure(s) for over 20 years, and now thinking he can fix it with pretty talk is either arrogant or politically naive beyond repair. Disqualifying characteristics for President.
    Hillary Clinton is a bit underestimated by venomous talk from both right and left. Would be better qualified, perhaps even a bit higher on the moral grounds, but unlikely she will get this nomination of this eroding and fermenting democratic party.
    This leaves independents with McCain.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  157. Annick, New York

    My only comment: The mass is being "bamboozled by a sweet talker"

    March 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  158. Hazel in London

    Jack, Barack Obama inspires so many people across the world. His words resonate with people from all walks of life. Europe loves Obama.

    Hillary Clinton has many virtues – and many vices. What she lacks is that 'special something' that Obama definitely has. Hillary Clinton should have the good grace to drop out of the race and get behind Obama.

    Hillary is in denial and she needs a reality check. It's pointless for her to remain in the race.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  159. jan

    oxy moron

    March 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  160. Gretchen - Ohio


    I think Obama has gotten....a bit more nasty since Texas and Ohio though. But in truth...I think the analysts would tote him as being weak if he didn't defend himself and get a little rough around the edges in response to the Clinton blatant slams.

    Clinton and her camp have by far though been embarrassingly dishonorable in their campaign.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  161. Karl in CA

    The mud-factor here is all on the Clinton side. Anybody that says herself and McBuh are more qualified then Obama is beyond immoral. Obama is trying to sell himself from the high moral side but Hillary apparently has no real qualifications to sell so she has to resort to smoke and mirrors while destroying the Democratic party. How pathetic.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  162. Ralph

    Jack ,are you seriously asking about moral high ground regarding politics and particularly political campaigns? Those words shouldn't ever be combined in the same sentence, let alone attached to any capaign or politician.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  163. Rex in Portland, Ore.

    The problem with the moral high ground is that it is neither. Remember Gingrich?

    March 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  164. XME

    Unfotunately is appears to impossible to really fight a Clinton while staying on higher ground. Personally, I can't blame the Obama camp for following up to defend Obama!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  165. Rachel, New Orleans, LA

    Both candidates are doing what politicians who want to win must do - going for blood. However, with all of Obama's lofty rhetoric and posturing as the moral superior, it makes his double-talk and manipulations of the truth more horrible, and truly hypocritical. Anyone who thinks Clinton is doing "more" to play dirty is just turning a blind eye to what their shiny new leader is saying and doing.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  166. Pamela Messina

    Neither, but at this point, I'm going with the one who took their child to a church that taught love and understanding not hate. That's the high ground for me. Let's say, it's a judgement call.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  167. Julie Carrigan

    Politicians say whatever will get them elected and increase their poll percentages. Interestingly, Hillary has recently 'lied' about her trip to Bosnia. Her campaign says that she may have 'mis-spoken'. This is likely indicative of what she would do in the 'White House'. So Bush 'mis-spoke' when he started the Iraq war? Do we wnat to elect another politician who is blatantly lying just to look good? Bush-Clinton- Bush – Clinton...are Americans really that stupd to keep up this dysfunctional cycle?

    March 24, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  168. John, Winston Salem, NC

    I was a Hillary supporter. I attended rallys and bought buttons, but the past few weeks have caused me to trash them because of the horrible and negative campaign she is running. I never though I would do it, but Obama will be the one I vote for here in NC and should be the new President of the United States. Hillary has gone too far and is out only for herself. She is hypocritical and not a good role model for anyone. She says FL and MI votes shouldn't count until she needs them, then she is all for "everyone's say". She is about bringing up Wright as a horrible man, but her husband had him as a quest in the White House. She talks about experience, but what more experience does she have with the exception of a floundering health care bill that was watered down anyway because of heath insurance lobby money.

    Over the past month I have taken a good look at Hillary and come to realize I was on the wrong side. When looking at morality, Obama stands alone right now.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  169. mikeytherhino

    Moral High Ground? MORAL High Ground??? HA HA HA HA HA!!! There IS no Moral High ground! These two are savvy ,hard nosed, polished, trained professional Politicians, they fight rough, they fight dirty, and they fight like hell, and they don't care what happens, so long as you hear there message, which never really seems to jibe with their tactics.

    Two Vultures fighting over a carcass have more right to the concept of Moral High ground then these two.

    Mike, From Staten Island, New York.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  170. Anne, Los Angeles

    Clinton – hands down! For all the Obama supporters – take the cotton out of your ears, the sleep from your eyes and wake up!

    March 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  171. Josh from Canada

    Obama by far. Yet, this is mererly a reflection of what works in today's politics...and the Clintons know this better than anyone. Both partisans and pundits love stories like Obama's pastor. It serves the media's goal to have a great story, and partisans' goal to divide and conquer. The Clintons can't find anything that sticks against Obama himself...so they try guilt by association. It's ugly, but it works.

    It never was about morality Jack, its about winning.
    Both parties need to focus on the issues or Americans will lose...again.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  172. karen Charlottesville, VA

    A smart woman writer said it well – the Clintons drag everyone down into the slime with them. I think Obama himself has a strong moral compass, but there are clearly a lot of his surrogates who are pretty mad and it's coming out in a pretty ugly way. You know, we had a chance for a wonderful campaign, but once the Clintons started in with their usual slime tactics, it's hard not to reciprocate.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  173. Susan Moses

    Obama has the high ground. period.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  174. John_Canada

    Clinton + Moral High Ground is like saying Military + Intelligence.
    It just doesn't work.

    March 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  175. Joan

    I really feel that Obama tried to run a different campaign, one that could unite the country, but as he became the front runner he has had to spend so much time defending himself against both Clintons, after all he is running against two people. The sad thing is that if he did not respond the pundits would be calling him weak, as they did John Kerry.
    Joan North Carolina

    March 24, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  176. Philip Sims


    Obama has taken the high morale ground over Hillary Clinton by far.
    These past two weeks of a barrage of attacks by the news media and pundits over the Jeremiah write controversy has left Obama shaken, but he is still standing. Obama’s speech on race in an attempt to unify the country has again shown brillance of his ability to bring the country together during strife and turmoil which is the mark of leadership and what this country needs. Obama did get a positive boost from the Bill Richardson endorsement which I feel could be the ticket for November which would be a cinch to beat McCain.


    Dallas, TX
    Obama 08

    March 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  177. Michael Clouse

    I am an Iowa voter and have watched this thing unfold from the beginning. The negativity started here before the caucus. The Clinton campaign started with mild push polls. My wife received a call just before the caucus from the Clinton campaign that indicated that she was being unfair not to vote for her fellow woman.
    I received calls that told me that Barack could not win a general election.
    Senator Obama ran a positive and fair campaign here in Iowa. We both voted for him. Since Iowa, Senator Obama has tried and tried to run a clean, above board campaign. The Clintons have done just the opposite. What you are seeing now are Obama supporters who are just plain tired of what the Clintons are up to. Myself, I have plenty of remarks concerning the Clintons that are downright malicious. However, Senator Obama expects higher ideals from his supporters. Therefore, I will hold my comments and my anger until a more appropriate time.
    However, what angers me most is how the media and their so-called experts keep the negative stuff going. In your effort to get a big scoop you are running trash on some of your shows. I used to love watching Lou Dobbs and Anderson 360 but have switched to other shows like Keith Oberman that at least present material in a humorous form. You guys are presenting this garbage as if it was fact and to the non-thinking viewers it is taken as fact.
    Anyway, I think you get the idea of how I feel.

    March 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  178. Heather


    I think the campaigns are both baiting eachother right now. But you have to understand that the reason Obama's campaign has stepped up their attacks so much is because the media will not pay attention to any of the lies that Clinton and her campaign are spreading. They have to be a bit more agressive now that the media has turned on them and the Clintons are sliding by without being questioned on anything.

    Why don't you ask everyone if Hillary's lie about Bosnia was a big deal or not? I dare you, as a reporter/journalist, to do your job. I DARE you to read this on air....didn't think so.

    Brooklyn, NY

    March 24, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  179. Penelope

    Neither! Folks who assume that either has not 'paid their dues' to get to run for office are sadly deluded. Politics is not for the meek or innocent.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  180. Rocky, San Antonio TX

    I think it would be nice if Barack Obama would show respect for our flag and national anthem by placing his hand over his heart when it is played. But I guess he cant be proud of his country unless he gets the democratic nomination.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  181. Dave

    Hillary occupies the moral high ground simlpy because she makes no claim to it. Neither candidate is behaving well enough to deserve the moral high ground, but only Obama is hypocritical enough to pretend he's doing things differently.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  182. kenito001

    If Bill Richardson is Judas, then Hillary Clinton must be Jesus. No campaign promoting this could ever hold the moral high ground.

    Nashville, TN

    March 24, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  183. Alec Marsy

    The truth is that they're both snakes in the grass. This entire primary process has slowly become a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, and it's not accomplishing anything. When it comes down to it, one of them has to have enough delegates to get the nomination and if Hillary can keep Obama from getting those delegates she has a good chance of getting this bid. Let's not fool ourselves, politics, and especially elections, is a game. A game with very ambiguous rules. Lets not get lost in making up our own rules.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  184. John

    For fear that the Clinton's are monitoring this Blog I will say they do. However if the truth be told Obama has supporters have made replies to the remarks made by Clintons and their supporters.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  185. Shelter (Texas)

    Except for the Minister talking trash, Obama has been Perfect.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  186. Stephen Newberg

    Jack, We are talking politics, There is NO MORAL high ground.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  187. Jonathan Fischer

    Obama has the high ground. It is well known that Hillary would do anything to be the nominee including trying to accuse her opponent of being a Muslim or saying that McCain would be a better choice over a fellow democrat. Whether Obama is the nominee or not I think he has the interest of the country in mind. Hillary just wants another Clinton in the white house.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  188. Philip Einhorn

    It seems to me that the Clintons are willing to destroy Obamas election at any expense than to lose graciously. Maybe they are thinking about running again 4 years from now against McCain

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  189. Ken Felder

    I hate trick questions. They're both politicians. 'nuff said.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  190. Dwight Burdette

    I realized when Hillary Clinton refused to take her name off the Michigan ballot, when the other candidates did so, that there was nothing she would not do to win the presidency.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  191. Brad Gainesville, FL

    Clinton will do downright anything to get the nomination, morals and big-picture aside.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  192. Venessa

    Obama obviously has a better record of standing the moral high ground. We as Obama supporters have been tolerating the Clinton negativity for over a year now and all of a sudden (because some of us are tired of the attacks) the Obama campaign is running a negative campaign? Please!! The Clintons and their campaign are just more of the same old politics they wrote the book on taking the unmoral path.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  193. Steve

    Right now its Obama, the more the Clintons get desperate, the more it becomes obvious

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  194. Janice

    Neither! Both are politicians.

    Obama "claims" to take the high ground but as of late he's just like Hillary Clinton...only more naive, less articulate (when without a teleprompter and prepared speeches) and less experienced.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  195. Priscilla McPherson

    Definitely Obama.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  196. Tom

    Clinton takes the high ground while Obama wallows in the gutter. You can't have it both ways Barack. If you wanna play then do it by the rules. He doesn't have the courage to let Michigan and Florida do their thing and that's just plain shameful and trying to win through the back door.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  197. Rich Dinsmore

    C. None of the above.

    Rich Dinsmore
    Cleveland, TN.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  198. sandra johnston

    obama is taking the high ground

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  199. Angela Worden

    This is a vicious question. But since you asked, Jack, of course it is Hillary Clinton who holds the moral high ground. She has said nothing of the evil condemnation by Barack Obama's twenty year pastor. If allowing one's children to hear "God Damn America" is a moral high ground I'll eat my shirt.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  200. Dwight Samuels

    Obama; hands down. However Hillary runs a close third.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  201. Marie

    No Question, It is Hillary Clinton

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  202. Jim in Ga

    High Moral Ground in Politics?? Jack are you serious?? You will have better luck finding the elusive WMD's or joining IJ looking for the Real Killers...

    High Moral Ground between Politicians is a vast valley of oxymoronship.


    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  203. Mark

    Obama is taking the moral higher ground. Jack you are the best person on CNN. I must say that the Dems are really making me sick to my stomach with all this nonsense. Every time I turn around President Clinton is saying something else stupid and the Clinton camp are the ones who constantly says the Obama camp are the ones who are playing dirty.

    Clintons.....get over it!

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  204. Mike Thumb

    McCain is taking the moral high ground. Hilary and Obama are acting like two children.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  205. Chy

    If we're talking just a high ground, then I would say Clinton is taking a "high" ground–she's high on herself, high on her image, and high on the idea of the white house. It's time to focus on the people and the party, and Obama does so by a landslide.

    Chy from New York

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  206. Charles

    Jack it depends on what the term moral high ground is. Let's be serious Jack, the Clinton supporters do not understand the meaning of morality. James Carville comes on TV and uses a sports analogy but he forgets that when you break the rules in sports, you are disqualified. If you don't believe me ask Marion Jones..

    Victoria, BC

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  207. tosca

    Obama is tdefinitely taking the high road...or is at least trying to. But, when your opponent is using lead knuckles under her gloves and throwing salt into your eyes- sometimes you have to throw a low blow just to get on equal footing.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  208. Kristina

    What really bothers me is the Judas remark by Carville. Who is she, Jesus Christ? Do we really want another president who puts loyalty to (him)(her) above everything? Isn't that what Hitler (yes, I know, no Hitler comparisons) and Stalin did?

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  209. Keith

    The Clinton's have never occupied any high or moral ground for as long as I have known them. These people are the epitome of all that is wrong in modern politics.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:13 pm |

    dear mr cafferty, has the clinton campaign, whilst throwing the proverbial kitchen sink and living room sofa, given any thing approaching the speech the barrack gave. and the clinton coterie has judas in its heart; how sad. yours,k peter h. dohan, md

    March 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  211. Bruce Marshall

    Oh Jack how can you ask this question, Hillery would throw Bill under the bus to get two votes. She is down and she will cut off her own nose in spit of her face. I hope she doesn't think she will run again if she keeps this up. she can't take the high ground she has no morals.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  212. Randall Martin

    The Clintons have no morals PERIOD. They're not even a REAL married couple. She pretends to forgive him and he pretends to love her. That EXACTLY what America needs!!!

    March 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  213. Melissa R in Louisiana

    Anyone who has eyes and ears that are functional knows the answer to this question.

    Shame on you Jack, for asking this trick question. You cannot say moral and Clinton in the same sentence and expect to be taken seriously.

    The Clinton campaign has been throwing rocks and hiding their hands behind their backs this entire campaign. I applaud the Obama campaign for not stooping to such low life tactics as his opponent.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  214. Eric Lindblade

    Clinton has the low ground with the Judas comment. . . If Richardson is Judas, then I suppose Mr. Clinton plays the role of Christ, and Hillary the role of...Mary Magdalene,from whom Jesus exorcised 7 demons. . . Maybe a few more demons have yet to be exorcised!

    March 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  215. Parker-27WA

    I think that the Obama camp has held the high ground all along. but this standing is none the less tarnished when his surrogates strike out with off the cuff remarks regarding dresses etc... still he I think is the one who can really make a change on the world stage.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  216. sheila from Utah

    The Clintons-Obama just does his usual make it look like he is on the high ground but it is as phoney as his intergity. He is the one that brought up the blue dress-ie Clintons infidelity-he is the one .Now he doesnt do it directly but through others.He glosses over his owm misdeeds by saying its bone heaqded to take a sweetheart land deal from the then and now indicted REZKO.He calls it bone headed and its really a kick back. He is even in a hate/totally negative movie about hillary.Please

    March 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  217. dom p

    Reverend Wright need I say more

    March 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  218. Renee, Calhoun GA

    Clearly, Obama can claim the high moral ground, and I believe that that is one of the reasons Bill Richardson has endorsed him. The good governor also seems to be trying to stay out of the sandbox fights. Obama has said all along that this entire campaign will be focused on changing the way politics is played in Washington. Both
    Obama and Bill Richardson have had opportunities to point out Senator Clinton's shortcomings (read amplifications) but have stayed
    away from sticking their tongues out and shouting- Take that! Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates have not shown the same restraint.

    March 24, 2008 at 5:24 pm |