I like that your writing is getting 'looser' CC -- not so stiff. But you must be tired or not too well -- lotta typos and grammatical errors lately.

Of course the country is dissatisfied -- the economy is tanking, price of gas goes up daily, we're stuck in a war that cost billions a month with no end in sight, a huge chunk of us can't afford basic health care and our 'leaders' live in lala land.

I know you're in the DC 'bubble' but talk to some regular folks for a change.

Senator Obama better get ready. He's going to get more than the kitchen sink thrown his way and more. To me he looked mad and unsure. The republicans are going to go after him with everything. Who's Bill Ayers? What's that about? Someone bombed the government buildings and then had a fund raiser for Senator Obama. I don't care if Senator Obama wasn't born yet (he said he was eight)when it happened. If it happened, how could Senator Obama be even remotely involved with this man? Here we go....red flag!! AGAIN!!

for all you Hillary supporters here is something that will make you proud of your choice of candidate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U

This debate was the most fair one yet. I liked that the responses were timed, and each were given an equal amount of time. I liked that the questions were staggered, and that they "flipped a coin" to see who would go first on opening and closings. I was impressed that both were challenged with tough questions and not allowed to wiggle out of fully answering.

ABC handled this debate in a very admirable way, and I think both candidates supporters should have been satisfied with the fairness of the debate, for a change.

Clinton was questioned about her positions on Wright and Obama's bitter comments, and she responded, owning her position, while Obama hedged on the Bosnia question, admitting his "campaign" was hammering on it, "of course," yet somehow dodging personal responsibility for what his campaign is doing? That just seemed dishonest to me. If his campaign is doing it - HE is. I'd much rather see the candidates own their positions and actions, than try and appear above the fray, when their actions don't match the perception they're trying to falsly portray.

Charles Gibson and George Stephenapoulis missed a question===when did you stop beating your wife.Talk about a pile on they grilled Obama for 45 minutes on any gotcha question they could think of, one right after another and then gave Clinton extra time to talk about her policies from notes because they shorted her(wink wink). They asjed Obama why he wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin. They neglected to ask Clinton and she wasn't wearing one and I never have seen her wearing one.

Why doesn't Clinton wear a flag? What's all this attention to Barack not wearing a flag. God all mighty, small minded america instead of Big Minded America.

It is incredibly depressing to see how ABC's debate today has been so controlled by pro-Clinton and her Republican conservative friends. Both groups want Senator Obama out of the race. Hillary only knows how to attack. Her entire personailty is negative. No wonder Bill looked for satisfaction from loose bimbos. None of the questions in today's debate took on Hillary's outright lies, her tax problems, the hidden off-shore shady businesses and lobbyists who give the Clinton ndynastyy megebucks, her Penn and husband's Colombia free trade support, etc, Obama obviously threatens business as usual in Congress and the WH. He will change our government to take it away from the lobbyists and oligarchs. He will work openly for national security, peace and the American people. Hillary, Wolfson, and the Clinton machine seize every opportunity to smear Obama, to throw the whole dirty kitchen sink at him (flag pins, guilt by assocation, etc, etc). Where is the debate on issues crucial to our nation, economy, education, security, future? This ABC cheap take on gotcha politics proves how mainstream media is still owned and run by Clinton power brokers. Our beloved republic is well on its way to becoming a Roman dynastic empire, with the Bush-Clinton dynasties leaching off the ordinary citizens, enabled by their henchmen and women.

Lylepink and Bsimon have brought this up and I believe I alluded to it on a post today. It's counterlogical to believe that with all that Obama has been hit with that her and not his trustworthy rating would go down. His polls seem to miraculously ascend, even when serious issues have been brought out.

When you consider the tenor of tonight's debate--the seriousness of the issues thrown at him which he did not react well to, some people I've talked with have said something is going on.
-------------------------------------------

I check Polls daily and how The Media is backing Obama almost 100%. I have wondered for months why so many of the "Liberal" leaning folks are so Hell Bent on losing the WH again in 2008. Every left leaning group I can think of is supporting Obama, when they must KNOW he cannot win the GE. I refer to this as "IDIOT-OLOGY" and "Living in La La Land". I would like to ask if there is anyone out there that can explain even a little bit of why this is happening?.
Posted by: lylepink | April 16, 2008 5:27 PM
Lyle asks a good question:
"I would like to ask if there is anyone out there that can explain even a little bit of why this is happening?."
I don't know if its the answer you're looking for, but the Wash Post has a couple stories on the subject today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html?nav=hcmodule
Posted by: bsimon | April 16, 2008 5:34 PM

Thank God none of us are so stupid as the Gibson and Stepha... gang provided questions to Clinton in advance. These guys ganged up on Obama and the American people know what they saw. Shame on you ABC mashpotatoe heads.

Clinton read constantly from her notes. Who gave her the questions in advance of the debate. Just more of the same.

Pam sounds bitter.

Rattled? You would be rattled too if you stand ready, willing and able to discus issues and solutions not gutter politics. Everyone keeps saying that the gutter issues (which I will not dignify by listing) will be re-introduced by the GOP. Then let them. The Dems should focus on the issues Americans want to discuss - high gas prices, the housing crisis, the war in Iraq, social security, and a host of other topics the next president will face. This debate was a disgrace. I am ashamed of charlie and george.

(Laughing).....no need to comb over every point of the debate.....

Buoy1 is right on, she spanked his ass tonight!

Geez, so refreshing to hear honest feedback from real people; media is totally out of control.

Hillary spanked Obama tonight...

Go Hillary!!!!

Obama was gracious enough to not jump on the pile about the Bosnia comments. Hillary returned the favor by trying to gangbang him on the fact that he served on a charity board with a Mr. Ayres of the Weather Underground, and she wouldn't let up until finally he poked a sharp stick in her eye by pointing out that Bill Clinton pardoned two others from this same group before he left office. Then she left him alone.No wonder her negatives are way up.She reminds me of the old gossips at the church. No wonder her big group of supporters is women over 70.

Clinton looked like a president.

Obama looked like a lost little kid.

Score -- Clinton 100% Obama 0.0.

Obama got beaten up by a girl.

Wow, Obama supporters never cease to amaze me with their meanness. So sad that this is how ya'll go about "changing" things...

What's up with the negative questions of this debate? No issues!

All You Obama Supporters Who Defend This Moron On Anything He Says Or Does Has Mental Issues That You Should Seek Some Professional Help (SOON).The Only Reason You defend Obama Is Because You Know What The Majority Of Voters Already Know,That Most Of What Negativity Has Been Said About Him Is True.

That's The Only Reason You Come On The Blog's With All That Negative BS You Know That F--KER Don't Have Any Experience,And Dishonest,You Need To Check Your Candidate,At Least Hilliary Were In Bosnia For Humanity Reasons,Why Have Obama Been Telling His LIES.

And I don't Have To Verify S--T Because You Already Know He's A Big (LIAR.A Lot Of You Talk About Senator Clinton Like She Might Be A Child,You Don't Have An Inch Of What She Has Accomplished In Any Of You Obama Idiot's Brains.

Chris Zillamonster Where The Hell You Steal Those Numbers Of Your's From,Obama Supporter's,Maybe The 11% Of Black's Nation Wide That They Make Up,Which Without The White Vote He Loses,Without Florida,& Michigan,That He Is Guranteed To Lose In November,He Will Also Lose Pa,Calif,NJ,NM,Ma,Texas,Ohio.

If He Is The Nominee He Loses All Those States,Again I Don't Have To Verify S--T,Did Zillamonster Verify That Crap He Just Injected Into The Readers Of This Blog Answer (NO).So I Wonder Where Did He Get Those So Called % Of His Answer Out Of His Bighead,And From Obama's Flunkies.

Vett Your Own Candidate Before You And All The Other Who Degrades Her For Her Work Over 30 Years Serving This Nation,Contrast.....OBAMA Answer-----NOTHING.....That's His Real Middle Name,(Mr Do Nothing Obama).

If You Don't Believe Me Check Out What Has He Done For Illinios Since Winning The US Senate,Which He Made Certain That Noone Else Were On The Ballots...Won By A Landslide,I Guess He Did.......And This Is Who You People Want To Send To The Oval Office,What Do You Expect Him To Do Their,Exactly What He Did In Illinois..................(NOTHING)

leichtman -

I didn't answer you because I left the office for dinner; I am at home now.

The answer is that it was, indeed, conjecture on my part (although I have a vague recollection of reading when I read that they were suspended from appearing on CNN until the end of the campaign, but I'm not going to call it fact).

As for whether it was fair for you to demand proof if I had said it were true, I don't recall your ever including "cites," as we say in the law, for all the assertions you make in your posts.

As I said before you inexplicably decided to go on a tear and repeatedly attack me over the past few days, I have tried to be civil and fair-minded in my posts: I don't gloat, and I don't pretend to know who will win any given primary (or the nomination, for that matter). I try to make my arguments for my candidate and against yours based on my analysis of what I read and hear.

In that regard I have tried to emulate Mark and other posters whom I deem to be thoughtful and fair-minded.

How about a truce?

Characterizing "Obama Supporters" with generic statements is as idiotic as characterizing "Clinton Supporters" or "McCain Supporters" as being of a certain ilk. Try thinking. It's hard and can be tiring, but it's better than repeating nonsense.

What about Senator Obama's health care plan do you like and not like? Senator Clinton's? Is "mandatory coverage" the moral equivalent of a tax? Why or why not? Is it irresponsible of either Democratic candidate to advocate creating a massive entitlement program?

Think people, think.

Wow, Obama supporters never cease to amaze me by their meanness. So sad that this is how ya'll go about "changing" things...

VAMMAP | April 16, 2008 6:56 PM

I have just read the "Time" magazine article you mention.

I posted here before that as political earthquakes go, if the Rev. Wright rant rated an 8, the "bitter" flap rates a 1 on the scale.

The Time article confirms my estimate.

I read Mark Halperin's article "What has not happened"

What does he want to happen???

1) The mystique has been taken out of the Obama campaign

2) the entire rational of the campaign themes has been taken out of the Obama campaign

3) Obama looks really really bad

4) Obama shown that he has a complete lack of understanding of key demographics in this country.

5) Obama has completely insulted many voters in swing states that he needs to win in November.

How bad can it be ??? It is horrible horrible horrible.

What is worse is that his supporters don't want to recognize it - the comments have shown how out-of-touch the Obama people really are, and how bad their judgement is.

Last Post.

Sensing something in the commentary and several remarks made (CNN-Lou Dobbs) that the "best is yet to come" which was said, like he (the pundit) knew something he wasn't telling, in terms of the debate and DEM race ahead. According to a pundit on CNN Hillary will not go negative tonight. He said she has too much to lose.

What do you guys think that could mean?

Chris,

Sorry you won't be having your beloved doughnuts free, at the least. Hope you brought a stash to warm you up.

I remember there was a time when opponents haggled over one or TWO debates. They didn't want a bored stiff electorate out there. This debate -#21- will be watched mostly by election junkies. Obama is the shoo-in Democratic nominee, he will do everything to not do anything to upset that expectation.

The Billarys are on an uncomfortable low esteem perception by the public. 54% unfavorable rating for Hillary, 51% unfavorable for Bubba:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4668032&page=1

The debates are tiring but are necessary - there are undecided voters who need information........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/04/17/obama-clinton-abc-debate-4-16-2008/

Cracking jokes about Clinton on this blog rarely gets a censorable retort. If I had joked about Obama, I'd probably be called a racist, which I have been, many times. That's where there is a double standard which has helped Obama.

I think we can all agree that Michelle Obama didn't do her husband any favors with her anti-American comments. Those were quelled by a new softer tack. They are all human after all, even Hillary...

She's had more adversity, but she's still very close. If you counted FL?MI she'd win. That's a problem and will remain one I think we all need to give her credit. And we have to ask ourselves, without our own preferential slants, what the reasons are that he hasn't put this away.

He's had endorsements galore, more money, more party support, the untouchable advantage of being a minority, just one caucus win, with cross voting out west that kicked out 10 of her primary wins, which is what killed the numbers for her: the list is humonguous. Though he was an unknown, he was a fresh new face, and he got every advantage a fresh face could ask for.

So, why hasn't he pulled this out along time ago? Isn't the onus on him, not her?

lol - did I read correctly that Obama is now wearing a flag pin ?? Hadn't noticed that but if so, Im sure the republican machine will love to run ads showing us the 'before and after' Obama for the next six months.

"The waddling insult induced me to give Hillary another $50. The head bobbing up and down insult resulted in another $100 donation."

Too bad for campaign finance reform. You could fork over a million bucks to Hill (though I doubt you have even the $150 you mention) with the way she has been outed here. Give it to a 527.

"So, what Obama said (to a small group of like-minded liberal money people in California) was that blue-collar hard-working people in small towns won't vote for HIM because they are bitter about the government, and as a result they would rather cling to their religion and vote on guns, gays, blah, blah, blah (psychobabble) because they simply won't drink the Kool Aid and vote for HIM. It's about HIM. Get it. HIM - the Messiah of liberal big government, who was sent here to save all us ignorant gun-toting, religious freak, anti-immigrant, anit different people, closed minded, small town typical white folks. He just pigeon-holed all us small town people into an ugly box that we do not appreciate being put into."

Posted by: PA Patriots for Clinton | April 16, 2008 7:12 PM

But it is okay to put African-Americans and the young into a seperate box because they do not agree with you? They must be crazy to not agree with that point of view, right?. This goes to show that he is right. People are willing to vote for the contiuning economic conditons because they were offended by that statement which has a lot a truth to it. The stupidity of
Americans never ceases to amaze me

Yep...Hillary's Lament came into my head from the great Obama spirits.

The waddling insult induced me to give Hillary another $50. The head bobbing up and down insult resulted in another $100 donation.

I am now going to count up the number of personal attacks made on each candidate that are unrelated to positions/ policies/plans and post that tally on the Philly Inquirer website. I will also post the top 10 most vile comments from this blog on the website. I think Philly voters need to know more about the kinds of people who vote for each candidate.

MarkinA & bsimon: I have seen the articles mentioned and yet the answeres both of you have given me pretty much squares with my thoughts about Penn and Wolfson from the beginning. I have thought they were actually against her, and for some strange reason she has followed their advice. I am even more puzzled by how Bubba is making so many foolish mistakes as if he is against her as well.

From the NYT --

Republicans know that they can easily defeat Obama.

February 28, 2008, 6:14 pm
Why I'm Afraid of the Clintons
By Dan Schnur

If it's not the first rule of Republican politics, it should be: never, ever, ever underestimate anybody whose last name is Clinton. Not Bill, not Hillary. Not Chelsea, not even George. They're very good at what they do, and when they're about to be written off for dead, that's when they're at their very best.
We've counted out the Clintons before: during the New Hampshire primary in 1992, after the death of health care reform and the Republican takeover of Congress, and at the height of the impeachment brawl a few years after that. On each of those occasions, we had convinced ourselves that this was going to be the end of this unique family's political journey. Each time, we were wrong.
When Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, I promised myself I would not be fooled again. As an equally loyal fan of the Republican Party and of the Green Bay Packers football team, I had come to regard the Clintons the same way I've always thought about the Dallas Cowboys. I don't like them. I root against them. I want them to lose and occasionally find myself wanting bad things to happen to them. But they are very good at what they do. And if someone can knock them out in the playoffs -- whether it's the New York Giants or a senator from Illinois -- I'm just as happy not to have to go up against them when the stakes are at their highest.
So throughout the Democratic primaries, I've been rooting for Barack Obama. The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She's certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we've been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I'd still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.
There's something other than superstition at work here: there's also a question of ideological positioning. Many of my fellow Republicans don't believe it, but Mrs. Clinton has actually fashioned a relatively centrist career as a senator. By contrast, Mr. Obama's voting record has been designated by the respected and nonpartisan National Journal as the most liberal of any of the Senate's 100 members. This is not merely an epithet: it represents a series of policy choices and legislative votes that leave Senator Obama to the left of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. Even the most inspirational and inclusive language in the world will face a stern test in the face of accusations on that front.
Without yet knowing the specifics of his record in office, general election voters are beginning to display an instinctual awareness of Senator Obama's potential shortcomings. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg News poll released earlier this week showed Senator Clinton defeating John McCain on the question of which candidate would best handle issues relating to the economy and immigration, while Senator Obama came up short against Senator McCain on both questions. While the differences were not as notable, Hillary Clinton also matched up better than Barack Obama against John McCain on questions relating to health care and on terrorism. (Senator Obama ran three points better than Senator Clinton against John McCain on Iraq, the only issue on which he outpaced her.)
Which brings us back to the question of change versus experience. While Senator McCain is an insurgent and a maverick, he is also 71 years old and he has been a member of Congress for roughly a quarter of a century. Not surprisingly, both Democrats defeated Senator McCain on the question of which candidate would bring necessary change to Washington, Senator Obama more decisively than Senator Clinton.
But the debate over change -- and perhaps age -- may be overshadowed by the overwhelming margin (53 percent to 22 percent) by which voters say that Senator McCain has "the right experience" instead of Senator Obama, almost three times as large as his advantage over Clinton. American voters have made it clear that they want change, but in the middle of a difficult war and an impending recession, they want reassurance as well. Far more than against Senator Clinton, a McCain campaign against Senator Obama could benefit from the perception among voters that John McCain is better prepared for the presidency.

UncleRemus' been listenin' to that trickster Bre'er Rabbit mixin' two tales together.

Elitism defined, is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite -- a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes -- are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

So, what Obama said (to a small group of like-minded liberal money people in California) was that blue-collar hard-working people in small towns won't vote for HIM because they are bitter about the government, and as a result they would rather cling to their religion and vote on guns, gays, blah, blah, blah (psychobabble) because they simply won't drink the Kool Aid and vote for HIM. It's about HIM. Get it. HIM - the Messiah of liberal big government, who was sent here to save all us ignorant gun-toting, religious freak, anti-immigrant, anit different people, closed minded, small town typical white folks. He just pigeon-holed all us small town people into an ugly box that we do not appreciate being put into.

He's an elitist politian, nothing more.

maxchicago said
"Gender is HARDER to overcome than RACE."
--------------------------------------
nuh-uh, there are medical procedures for the former. Of course Hillary always blames some vast conspiracy for her failures...never herself for this ill-managed campaign, or her undermining husband. (What's with him anyway? Everytime he opens his mouth, he sticks her foot in it.)

Hillary Clinton '08

Obama has really done it now. He just has not learned his lesson about Bitter.

"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get Hillary Clinton supporters persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these meetings in Hillary Clinton's campaign offices, and like a lot of meetings in her campaign, the votes been gone now for 3 months and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through January, and February, and each Senior Advisor has said that somehow these votes are gonna regenerate with MI and FL and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who support me or anti-media sentiment or anti-Republican sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Solutions for the American Corporation

alterego1 (great name)

Good points. I ask because I realize that we all see things through our own lense. I still think there isn't much agreement on the core points.

On the Wright/bitter controversies it's very difficult for me to sqaure with either, particularly because if the tables were turned, and this was Hillary's achilles, I think we'd see a different result.

Take at look at the list Mark Halperin just did: Bad things didn't happen to OM.
My question is WHY ALTER EGO1? Talk about an unavoidable confluence of variables tags and not one stuck. My belief is that eventually they will. Not to disparage your candidate, but to say: this is not about the will of the Gods, but more about cause and effect.

When will this campaign end ??? Do we really have to watch the democrats destroy themselves??

It is a little pathetic.

Hillary is determined to destroy Obama in the vain (double meaning intentional) hope that this will sway enough superdelegates.

The Superdelegates should be telling her to take a wild leap by now. Are they smart enough to do that?

At the same time, Obama is a tragedically flawed candidate - flawed by the good intentions of affirmative action - flawed by being of two worlds, but not really of either - flawed by believing that that appeal of his youth will actually propel him.

This actually would be a good book.

Maybe I could write a book about Obama and make 4.2 MILLION dollars this year.

Who are the idiots buying these books??

I have to wonder if anyone is actually reading the books. Because, you know, Obama would not be Obama if people actually read those books.

People probably have them out on their coffee tables, oh yea I am sooooo cool I have the Obama book - I really dont see the coolness factor, I really dont.

Does anyone else not see the coolness factor???

The Bad thing that haven't happened to BO.

This is interesting. Would like to hear what you all thing.

http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-the-bad-things-that-havent-happened-to-obama-since-the-bittercling-controversy-erupted/

JEC,

I enjoyed that. Did you write it?

Go BARACK!

Obama has a chance to disown his bitter-gate comments today and apologize to the rural voters of PA, IN, NC and other states where votes are coming up. He has lost all his magic as a result of his offensive comments. Remember, he has said the same thing before. During his now-famous race speech, he attributed racist attitudes to his own grand mother. This is a problem in his inner soul. His campaign has called Hillary and Bill Clinton racists. He himself has called Republican ideas better, and Ronal Regan a better president than Bill Clinton. Obama and his campaign have been most offensive to Hillary Clinton. These people need to come down to earth if they want to win in November, if he is the nominee. I am afraid that the democratic party has lost all the advantage of the Bush era because they have not shown any dignity in their campaign. Most provocations came from Obama camp; now Hillary is paying back. Democrats are inviting disaster in November especially in presidential elections by bringing in racism and elitism charges into the campaign, by not counting the votes from FL and MI and other intra-party conflicts. Such polarization within the democratic party will blow away the eventual nominee.

I don't see what this debate is about. She has already Acknowledged being a liar! She calls it Misspoke,its still a lie! we don't want another liar for 4 years,do we?

Leichtman and Mark,
There is a lot of truth in what Mark Jeffery Koch. I did follow most of the spin. Look at blogs in WaPo there are some guys have always been calling Obama a muslim, black racist, snake oil salesman, ... job, Osama, and also refer to where and when he was conceived. I am really sad about the state of things. I do know attacks against McCain and HRC but definitely BO gets the most.

Joyce, did you make that up. Hilarious.

Have you seen this? The "Screw 'em" quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/hillary-and-mis.html

Do check it out.

alterego1,
Good question. However, Bill is ignoring us the professors, who oppose HRC for a simple reason: we see through her gimmicks.

JAC13 I am not attacking you only questioning you. I believe that you posted that Begalla and Carvell are on the HC payroll. Personally I would be thrilled if that was accurate but doubt it. You posted that as your rational for CNN to fire them. I challenged that assertion and speculated that it was more likely from constant attacks by the Obama campaign and his supporters. Seriously if you have proof of that assertion lets see it I would love to know that was true. If not please retract it as simply partisan inaccurate spin.

Perhaps if she had not lied repeatedly about her so called experience, not engaged in the politics of personal destruction, mud slingling, and yes, racism, and smearing her opponent with more lies she would have a chance to be elected President. Hillary Clinton, whom William Safire once called "a congenital liar" and Carl Bernstein, who along with Bob Woodward brought Watergate to the attention of the American people, stated that "Hillary Clinton has a had a long time problem with the truth" is the most polarizing, divisive, and mean spirited candidate to run for President since Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, Hillary Clinton is obsessed with secrecy, revenge against her enemies, and incessant, non-stop lying about her record and the record of her opponent. She is a female version of Richard Nixon. America deserves a lot better than Hillary Clinton. It amazes me how people believe all the many, many lies she and her husband are telling the American people. Are we that dumb that we want another Nixon in the White House???

bsimon, He has a US Secret Service detail, but apparently Israel is in no mood to offer him any additional protection.

"Israel's secret service has declined to assist U.S. agents guarding former U.S. President Jimmy Carter during a visit in which Israeli leaders have shunned him, U.S. sources told Reuters on Monday."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24107417/

Gee, I can't imagine why.

HILLARY'S LAMENT

I rant, I rave
I shed some tears.
Can't they count
my 35 years?

It's my turn now,
don't they know?
I wasn't supposed
to have a foe.

Don't they know
it's me, me, me?
I smell a male
conspiracy!

I'll show those guys
I'm done with tears.
Pour the whiskey.
Pass the beers.

I'm old enough
to be his Mama.
How dare they
vote for that Obama.

I got him good,
tag - you're elite.
But it blew back
- now I'M EFFETE!

HOPE and CHANGE
I guess we'll see,
if folks want that
or more Bill & me.

Uh-oh, now here
comes another loss.
Barack just got
thumbs up from THE BOSS.

JEC

John Edwards? I doubt that. Where is that coming from since John and Elizabeth Edwards have been praising HC?

Independent, my favorite spin has been the Clinton one on Obama from a drug-using gangster pre-South Carolina to an elitist now. First they dismiss him as another Jesse Jackson, and now they dismiss him as another John Edwards/Al Gore. Pretty impressive 180.

proud by now you should appreciate that there are millions of true moderates in the Democratic party who do not subscribe to that attitude. Your party has its own problems with your cultural right who I doubt you agree with, but don't really hear you taking on or criticizing.

mark have you noticed this past week the Obama campaign's backing off bragging about a possible Carter endorsement? That linkage is certainly not sitting well with the Jewish communicty.

"US taxpayers are paying for Secret Service protection for Peanut to meet with a terrorist!"

Why didn't we hear you squawking about this last month when Cheney made the grand tour of the Middle East last month? Who do you think is paying those terrorists' bills?

alterego1,
Can't get sense from spin docs or paid campaigners. They would like to imply that Obama said " people started the concepts of religion and defense (hence guns) after they become bitter".
Whether we like Obama or not for Christ's sake he is a devout Christian.

Nope there is no bitterness here.
:-)

Lyle, She started the race with high negatives that she had to overcome. Probably a Paul Begala campaign could have helped her put her best foot forward and consistently shine. But Penn-Wolfson, and the impediment Bill proved to be, have probably fatally wounded her. That is my take.

mark its fair game if its honest. The Obama campaign certainly does not want viewers of the commercial to recognize that that reaction was coming from Obama supporters. Didn't see anything in their ad disclaiming that, which we as Texas lawyers have to do in our advertising.Its dishonest mark b/c it implies those were HC supporters which they clearly were not and the Obama campaign knew they were not when they filmed the commercial. How do you think the commercial would have gone over if the moderator had said Obama supporters booing HC? Not very well, but honest.
Not many union halls left here in Houston except the SIU and Boilermakers where I went in 1991 to hear raucous support for Bill.
There are unions who support HC. Should they now show up to Obama events and heckle him and disrupt his events and then have a film crew there to create ads showing a free for all? Its cynical mark and hypocritical especially from a campaign claiming to be above that kind of politics. It would be more tolerable if they would ackowldge that can get in the gutter with their own political stunts and are not pure as they so spin the media they are, that was my point. And again I would criticize any union that pulled that kind of stunt for HC and then saw the HC campaign try to benefit from that stunt. Its the worst kind of ugly politics and hypocritical to hear the Obama campaign claim they are above.

proudtobeGOP writes
"US taxpayers are paying for Secret Service protection for Peanut to meet with a terrorist!"

Is he? I thought Carter gave up Secret Service protection.

From----

The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House.

By: B.R. Barber-Clinton Advisor
W.W. Norton and Company-2001

Pages 96-97---

"If working class white men and white women in the South no longer wanted to support the President, (Clinton) if ethnics were continuing to jump the Democrat's ship, then she (Hillary), looked her husband in the eye-"screw 'em. You don't owe them anything, Bill. There doing nothing for you, you don't have to do anything for them."

Will this come up?

If it were not Jimmy Carter who we were talking about, Proud, I would be willing to suspend disbelief and assume this was the kind of back door talk we always engage in unofficially with the bad guys. But we do not know about those talks until years later when they have borne some fruit.

This is just Jimmy Carter, the man who would have been our worst Prez since WW II til lightning struck and gave us GWB. God forbid GWB decides he is a one man peace negotiator someday.

Lyle asks a good question:
"I would like to ask if there is anyone out there that can explain even a little bit of why this is happening?."

I don't know if its the answer you're looking for, but the Wash Post has a couple stories on the subject today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html?nav=hcmodule

Remember, Obama supporters-
According to the new Washington Post/ABC News poll, 55% of Democrats want Senator Clinton to stay in the race...even if she LOSES PA! And, since she's going to win by 10+ pts, settle down and enjoy the ride!

At the opening of the debate Obama will announce Bill Clinton as his running mate and send her screaming into the crowd.

"In who's world is saying they ..cling to "antipathy towards people who aren't like them" is some kind of compliment." ?

It's the world of the ultra left, Leichtman. The same world where Jimmy Carter is seen as some kind of hero. And Obama fell into the trap -speaking to an audience in San Francisco, belittling rubes in fly-over country. Unfortunately, for him, others listened.

Imagine the Alice in Wonderland scene that will take place later this week, when U.S. Secret Service agents entrusted with protecting former president Jimmy Carter stand guard over a meeting with the head of a designated terrorist group responsible for near daily attacks targeting civilians, including numerous attacks in which American citizens have been injured and killed. US taxpayers are paying for Secret Service protection for Peanut to meet with a terrorist!

On the left coast, all this is perfectly normal. You just have to understand the 'context'.

I check Polls daily and how The Media is backing Obama almost 100%. I have wondered for months why so many of the "Liberal" leaning folks are so Hell Bent on losing the WH again in 2008. Every left leaning group I can think of is supporting Obama, when they must KNOW he cannot win the GE. I refer to this as "IDIOT-OLOGY" and "Living in La La Land". I would like to ask if there is anyone out there that can explain even a little bit of why this is happening?.

actually George so wants to prove his impartiality that he usually bends over backwards to bash the Clintons on This Week.

Cool Bobby K - Your post tickled me. Thanks.

You would not happen to be a Methodist minister in Austin, would you?

leichtman, you have been around union political gatherings in TX, have you not? They are raucous and quick with reaction. They are a little scary for genteel folks, but kinda fun, too. So if HRC gets booed and not cheered at a union political gathering for a remark, it is fair game for a video. Believe me, if anyone in her audience thought she was being unfairly booed, they would have reacted loudly, right then - unless PA is nothing like TX. It ain't like going to the opera.

I know that you have been volunteering for HRC and that you have an investment in her candidacy that only comes with commitment and hard work. I applaud your effort and I remember what it felt like to be so engaged.

What was George Stephanapolous' last job by the way?

Oh...wonder if he is exactly an impartial moderator..

jac13 if Carvell or Bagalla are truly on the HC campaign payroll where is your evidence? Is that an accurate statement or mere conjecture?
Seems like CNN was bullied by the Obama campaign to remove any type of balance that didn't praise Sen Obama. MSNBC gives us nightly antiHC rants by Olberman, CNN gives us nightly Obama speeches by Roland Martin who Obama supporters likely see as being objective.

"If Clinton can't make "bitter" stick to Obama tonight, she may never have another opportunity to do so; no other debates have been scheduled in the remaining six weeks of the nomination fight."

Agree with everyone else: if she opens this door BHO will hand her her head on a plate.

I hope he also hands the media it's head on a plate over this as well. See Greenwald ( http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html ) for reasons why. Bonus: Greenwald criticizes our 'beloved' Chris Cilizza! Congratulations, CC!

I hope that Clinton goes after Obama with a vengence and slams him to the mat.

And ask Obama questions first. I'm tired of hearing him say that he agrees with Hillary when he doesn't know the answer.

uhm, have you been on vacation lately? they just shared a stage for the cnn religion chat.

I thought they shared a stage Sunday on that weird CNN show.

"So here's a question for all of you. If Bill Clinton says that young people are naive about voting and should vote for Hillary Clinton, and John Murtha says McCain is too old to be president, then does that end up alienating the voters that Bill Clinton seems to want for his wife?"

Why do you pre-suppose that Bill wants Hillary to win?

More Hillary hypocrisy on the elitism charge:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

Hillary on the working class: "Screw 'em."

Here's the facts:

Hillary is hanging on by her fingernails hoping for one of two possibilities:

1) Obama has a mjaor stumble. Rev Wright Episode squared kinda deal

or

2) She winds up with enough support to garner the VP spot on Obama's ticket

At this juncture, option has about a 1 in 100,000 chance of happening

and Option 2 is about 1 in 100.

Barak Obama will be our next Preident. Thank GOD. Hillary will go back to being Senator from NY. McCain will go back to being Senator from AZ. President Obama will begin to right the things that Bush wronged.

America will get back on track.

So here's a question for all of you. If Bill Clinton says that young people are naive about voting and should vote for Hillary Clinton, and John Murtha says McCain is too old to be president, then does that end up alienating the voters that Bill Clinton seems to want for his wife?

I just awoke from a long nap, how is my man Biden doing?

What? Who? and Who? Come on, stop teasing.

"Sounds like we are being told to believe in a parrallel world where actual tape recorded words are some how different then what we are told those words actually meant 48 hours later..."

Dude, the Bosnia thing took place in the 1990s, not 48 hours before. Where do you get your information?

That reminds me - maybe Hillary can say that she was duped by Bush/Cheney into going along with the Iraq debacle by saying she was lulled by Cheney's promise that Americans would be welcomed with flowers and candy by the Iraqis. She can say it brought back fond memories of her Bosnia experience!

VAMMAP -

You think the Obama campaign was wrong to point out to CNN that having Carville and Begala on and portraying them as objective commentators -- when they are both, from time to time, on the Clinton payroll -- was not fair?

Check out this post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

Well,this year's Democrat primary season has taught me one thing about black Democrat voters....when confronted with having to pick between a ninny like Obama or a harridan like Rodham,they will pick a ninny every time

his supporters will not even refute that what was said on the tape is what was actually said, they only want to spin his actual words by misdirection to the one word bitter asking us to suspend reality when he went on to say "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them". The phrase antipathy towards people who aren't like them certainly is disturbing and sounds like he is calling them blatant racists, but we are somehow being spun to believe that somehow that is a compliment? In who's world is saying they are bitter and cling to "antipathy towards people who aren't like them" is some kind of compliment. Sounds like we are being told to believe in a parrallel world where actual tape recorded words are some how different then what we are told those words actually meant 48 hours later when Senator Obama was able to vet those words with his communications team. Was John Kerry given that same opportunity when he was preparing to run for President in 2008?

The audience will be filled with the usual motley assortment of union shills, public school teachers, welfare recipients, moronic college kids, and code pinkos that the DNC herds into their debates. Whichever candidate embraces the far left Move.org positions will get all of the audience applause...but I doubt that is wise long term political strategy.

Being a liar is not always bad. When Clinton says she is going to open this country to severe attacks by surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq, she might be lying. When Obama says it, he really means it.

Chris, why do you keep softpedaling Obama's San Francisco fundraising pitch as if the only issue was his use of the word "bitter"? The real issue is that he not only looked down his nose at working class Pennsylvanians for clinging to religion but also put their religion in the same nasty category as racism ("antipathy to people who aren't like them").

That wasn't just a "poor choice of words", it's what Obama really believes, and it was exactly the right choice of words for an ultra-private gathering with his wealthy Left Coast supporters.

I agree with the comments regarding counting the votes. I think that the best way for the party to come together for the GE is for all the votes to be counted, and for Clinton to lose fair and square. A - that's what democracy is about, and B that way neither she nor her supporters can say that the election was "stolen" from them or that a candidate was shoved down their throats. Funny, though, that the others who dropped out (Edwards, et al) are not claiming that the race is somehow undemocratic because they left it. . .

"you're going to have at least 49% of the Democratic party feeling like a very cheated group..."

Check the polls. Hill has 40% support, and very few of those are deadenders that intend on going down on this Titanic.

Now shut up and get in line.

Seems that GS being part of the OLD Clinton guard should not be apart of participating also, I would like for non talking heads or more balanced (NPR)to moderate. These guys are themselves constantly posturing. Lets outsource it to BBC to put focus on how it feels to see someone else get your gig.
Really perhaps some newspaper folks should get a shot one USA and one WaPo.

THE ONLY PEOPLE IN PA THAT AREN'T BITTER ARE THE AMISH! EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS WHERE BARACK IS COMING FROM!

WHILE HILLARY TRIES TO PILLORY,
BA-ROCK WILL ROLL!

Clinton - McCain '08. Rise Hillary rise!
This is the Dawn of Eve.

Since Obama is cutting into Hillary's lead in PA, this is her last chance to go for his jugular.

You can be sure her handlers have given her canned killer lines. But, desperation always loses, and Hillary doesn't wear it well.

Look for Obama to cut into her PA lead even more since it's much more winning to be authentic than manic....

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

LEICHTMAN - GUESS WHAT? OBAMA WILL NOT BE SWIFTBOATED! THAT HALL WILL HAVE PLENTY OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS IN IT TONIGHT! GET READY FOR A CASCADE OF BOOS AND CATCALLS WHENEVER HILLARY MAKES A SHRILL COMMENT! GUESS WHAT? THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! HA HA HA!

SHRILLARY THINKS SHE CAN KNEECAP THE FUTURE PRESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY? I DON'T THINK SO!

HILLARY WILL TRY TO HATE,
BUT OBAMA WILL WIN TONIGHT'S DEBATE!!!!

Posted by: MISTER CAPS | April 16, 2008 4:23 PM

-----------------------------------------

Are you aware the Obama camp pressured CNN in to dropping two Clinton surrogates from appearing on CNN until Dec when the election is over?

Well if your not, you are now. It's a fact.

Really, Obama supporters are like mini Swift Boaters or Dean screaming bobble heads. The word out there was Hillary would do anything to win. That was an entirely overrated notion. The truth is the Obama campaign has turned into a legion of Rovian attackers. Watch out for DEM defectors...When you have a party that tells their electorate they won't count votes till the campaign is over, you're going to have at least 49% of the Democratic party feeling like a very cheated group...

Hillary lost the last debate, but the lies about NAFTA came out two days later. So what matters is what mud the Clintons will sling after she loses yet again.

The fact is, she's just not that good on her feet, her recapitulations of lines scripted by her campaign come across as flat ("change you can Xerox"? Puhleese!) and she tends to whine.

VANMAP - one question on "elaboration." I almost hate to engage in a relatively meaningless debate, but how is it elaborating to say "they cancelled a welcome ceremony for me and I ran across a tarmac to evade sniper fire" when (a) there was no sniper fire; (b) you did not run; and (c) the ceremony was there, and captured on film? What part of this is elaboration, rather than untrue? I'm not saying that she concsiously lied. A lot of people have false memories that are perfectly clear. What I am saying, though, is that it is not opinion to say that this was untrue, rather than an elaboration. To be an elaboration, the facts must be at least slightly similar to the ones you recount. For example, if I say I caught a four foot long fish, when it was really two feet, that's elaborating. When I say I caught a fish when I did not even go out fishing, then that's untrue. Does that make sense?

Clinton reminds me of some lawyers I have tried cases against over the years who will muster up their most intense phony indignation and argue just about anything they think will help them win.

Fortunately, the judges are on to most of them and know that their arguments are just as phony as their indignation, and that they don't really believe them themselves.

Let us hope that the voters of Pennsylvania will have the same discernment and finally, at long last, deliver the coup de grace to the lousy Clinton campaign that, for all intents and purposes, ended long ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/hillary-and-mis.html

You've got to see this, Chris and all.

It's very relevant.

I'll be curious to see how Obama handles Clintons attack tonight on the absolutely ridiculously overblown comment. As with strategy goes the person who knows when where and how the attack is coming has the advantage to plan a strong counter-attack. What would be very surpirsing if Clinton did'nt press the attack at all, that would probably throw Obama more off his game than if she did her predictable attack where she will say " Obama's comments were elitist and patronizing." Everybody knows its coming so how can she be effective with it. Had the U.S told the Germans were they were going to attack at D-day we would have lost. Surprise is everything in politics and war, so lets see what Clinton will do. My guess is she'll predictably attack and be hit with a decent counter by Obama who excels at the Counter-Attack.

The more the media bags Obama the more I and my friends will vote for him. There is a reason the media doesn't want him and throwing the book at him.

Late breaking news - Stephanopoulos is sick, so Michael J. Fox will be filling in for him.

Seriously - here is Stephanopoulos's shot at gaining huge cred as a journalist. Let's see if he can ask the questions that everyone who takes the time to tune in and attend want answered:

- Why did Hillary lie about Bosnia?
- Why is Hillary less than forthright on trade issues?
- How can she be trusted to make snap calls at 3 AM when the whole world knows that she goofed on the Iraq vote, a decision she had months to prepare for?
- Why won't she pay her vendors?
- Who is writing her concession speech?
- Will she support Condi Rice or Michelle Obama in the first credible campaign to elect a woman president?
- How long until Bill is given his walking papers, now that he is officially good for nothing?

Get hot, Georgie!

leichtman -

I've often wondered how cool it would be to be you -- wise, very experienced in the ways of politics and the world, always right, preaching to all of us other posters to mind our manners and use proper forms of address, while at the same time you are insulting or correcting or patronizing us, or questioning our intelligence.

But then I decided that it wouldn't really be so cool, after all, since if I were you I would have to be so f***ing angry all the time.

VANMAP,

I'm not sure I agree with you that Sen. Obama has "just as much explaining" to do. I tend to think that most of the things brought up by both camps in this process has not been worthy of much explaining. But to answer your poll question, I think that Obama is just better at spinning or explaining, whichever you want to call it. Look at the recent flare-up. Rather than repeating the line (as Clinton did three times with the Bosnia thing), he just said, oops, sorry, I said it badly. We can debate whether he should apologize or not (I tend to think not), but he acknowledged his error. This allowed him to take the wind of out Clinton's sails when she attacked him for it. Contrast that with the Bosnia affair. Clinton only eventually said she misspoke. It's not that I care about either episode, but I think that's why the polling shows what it does - for whatever it's worth Obama is very good at diffusing controversy while Clinton (who notably starts off with a disadvantage when it comes to controversy and truth) is not quite as good at it.

As to your newest point about the "duplicity" of Obama with respect to the trade issue, it's not really something a Clinton fan would want to bring up, is it? First of all, Clinton's surrogates gave the story to Politico, and the Canadian government later said that Clinton's camp had exaggerated. In fact, the Canadians apologized to Obama for the inaccurate reporting of the interaction. Second, if she brings up those "problems," she's very susceptible herself with Mark Penn and her husband (and possibly herself, through him) accepting money to lobby on behalf of the Colombian trade agreement, which Clinton has said she opposes. Again, I don't really care what her surrogates do here, but the point is that she cannot talk about these things without opening up her own wounds.

I'm not saying that Obama is perfect. None of us really are, right? But as I see it, Clinton's problem is that her outrage over the topics you bring up seems manufactured and fake. I think it's wrong to think that either candidate is "elitist" or lacks a constituency. Both candidates obviously have supporters and constituents. Moreover, I don't really see either candidate as being disingenuous about their foreign or domestic policies. As much as both Clinton and Obama have to use rhetoric (because they are not yet elected, so they cannot run on anything 'concrete'), both have said things that they will likely not follow up on. I guess I'm just not sure where you are getting deceipt about national security, etc. from either candidate. That they may change their plans or agendas later is actually a good thing, I think. At least, flexibility is something we've been sorely lacking over the last eight years. Right?

If Clinton "misspoke" about the Bosnia episode; what event did she confuse this with? When did she ever duck from gun fire??

Regarding the 21 year old student from Yale ( note how the person couldn't just stop at 'student', had to put the 'Yale' in there as well: talk about elitist) comments on 'mud-slinging'. Nice try, Clinton started the mud slinging early, continued, and kept on slinging mud.
By the way Bill Clinton doesn't think you at 21 are savvy enough to understand politics. Maybe he's right.

Desperate Pig-Liar-Chicken Hillary is in a very delicate position tonight. If she comes with the Bitter-Thing, the crowed will boo her and Obama will once again take advantage.Any criticism from this Travesty of Woman will be a disarter to her campaign. Miss Sniper should be reminded that her Hate-Rate is around 80 per cent.

JamesCH Said,

"There is a big difference between saying something once and using the same story multiple times.

It's the difference between "misspeaking" (what Obama did in SF), and "lying" (Clinton's Tuzla story)
-----------------------------------------
I think the problem for a lot of people with Obama is how he explains away statements he feels the public has misinterpreted.

When the press, McCain and Clinton called his comment elite, they weren't saying he was elite. So, now his line of defense is off the mark, not related at all to what was said and who it was said to. Instead his argument is that he couldn't be elitist because he's been too poor to qualify. That's not the point. It's the comments that were elitist. Besides, you can be poor, go to Harvard, have bills, attend Reverend Wrights's sermons and be an elitist in your attitude. Which is what they meant and it's what he has not responded to.

His statements clearly reveal that he feels he can't win over the white vote there and it's because of those people's cultural, religious, socio-economics and because he's black.

You say he misspoke; I say he didn't. I say Hillary elaborated; you say she lies.

You see the problem. I will take elaboration any day to discpetion. Obama has yet to come out and say, Yes, I said that. It's on the tape, I used those words and that's exactly what I meant.

Can Hillary say one sentence without the words "you know" in it?

PRB -

Agreed, but it will have to be Gibson who asks her that, 'cause it's a cinch Stephanapolous ain't gonna ask his former co-boss anything uncomfortable like that!

Hope Charlie and George delve more deeply into the issue of a constitutional review of laws enacted since 2000, keying off Obama's saying he would "immediately" consider such a review.

That's heavy process, but so important... probably will never come up.

Hillary's flagrant lies about her Bosnia trip should not be passed over because of the current media storm over Obama's "bitter" comments. She should be pressed about the fact that saying she "misspoke" and then attributing the mistake to being overtired obviously falls way short of being an acceptable explanation. She repeated it several times, and one does not misremember (to borrow a word from Roger Clemens) something as powerful as coming under sniper fire.

Gender is HARDER to overcome than RACE. Who is OBAMA? What has he ever done? Where does he come from? What about REZKO, WRIGHT, AYERS, AUCHI? POTHEAD? Being a community organizer entiltles him to be arrogant,insolent and elitist. Look how he is treating Hillary Clinton? Women will be suffering from Sexism, ignorance, stupidity and mediocrity as long as people will keep making abnormal behavior look normal. A woman can get to the top in Argentina( succeeding her husband), in Liberia, in Germany, in England, in Chile, in Israel, in India, in Pakistan, the Philippines, 1960 in SRI LANKA, what about scandinavian countries!! The problem here is not Hillary CLINTON. She is far to be perfect but surely far more capable than Obama! She is the perfect SCAPEGOAT! 99.99% of violences against women come from men with big muscles but little brain. I am a man, I think that it is time to be fair. it is time to treat women fairly Let's get out of this sterile debate: violences against women, RAPES, CRIMES, HOMICIDES...SINGLE MOMS... Being proud over what's unaceptable is CHEAP! nothing to be proud of! Keep spreading ignorance and mediocrity! MAX Chicago

LEICHTMAN - GUESS WHAT? OBAMA WILL NOT BE SWIFTBOATED! THAT HALL WILL HAVE PLENTY OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS IN IT TONIGHT! GET READY FOR A CASCADE OF BOOS AND CATCALLS WHENEVER HILLARY MAKES A SHRILL COMMENT! GUESS WHAT? THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! HA HA HA!

SHRILLARY THINKS SHE CAN KNEECAP THE FUTURE PRESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY? I DON'T THINK SO!

HILLARY WILL TRY TO HATE,
BUT OBAMA WILL WIN TONIGHT'S DEBATE!!!!

When people call Obama a "hypocrite" for attack ads, they're biased towards Clinton or McCain. How else can you describe a person who distorts the inherent facts? Obama did not go negative in his campaign for Iowa, and he won. There were articles urging Obama to go negative, he refused. Obama has countered every attack levelled against him with truth. Truth hurts, so he gets labelled as a hypocrite. But what you're essentially saying is "Obama's as bad as Hillary!" I don't see how that helps your candidate. And charges of hypocrisy highlight the same in Hillary as well as fueling her outrageous lies. The fact remains that if you dislike Obama you always will and are looking for a reason to justify it. Clinton has provided in the past three months actual substantive reasons to vote against her through her actions. Also according to Gallup most voters believe Hillary is responsible for the negativity of the campaign. So Bobby, and others -- I hope you'll be able to deal with Obama being the nominee, and if you vote McCain I hope you pray for all the soldiers he'll send to their deaths.

The only way we can get Hillary back in the whitehouse is to have her run with John McCain. Rise Hillary rise!
Clinton - McCain '08

"CC is being a bit unfair to characterize obama's discussions of health care and the economy as being "entirely bereft of specifics"...That is a line from the Clinton talking points. As a journalist, CC should actually take a stab at objectivity."

Amen. Obama has provided as much and in many cases more policy details than Hillary. Check out their websites, look at the past debates, look at the town hall meetings they have held. Now, if someone agrees more with Hillary's proposals or thinks she delivers them better, fine. That's up to voters to decide. But it's just patently untrue that Hillary's plans or policies are more specific than Obama's.

Geez. It's worse than her claiming she has 35 years experience.

Unasked for advice, but here goes.

Hillary, this is it. If you don't want to be like "Custer" at "Little Big Horn" don't start carping about "elitists", guns, Jesus or whatever. Millions of us have "lost it" and now Bill's out there stirring the pot. You have one last shot to come over as sincere, forthright and your own candidate. No Wolfson, no b.s.; do something that you seem incapable of doing (i.e. answering a question without straying off into left field or ignoring it.)

For Barack, be sure "brain is in gear before putting mouth in motion". No more "gaffes" etc. Calmly, but firmly defend yourself if Hillary starts the artillery. Fight back, but without seeming like you're hurt or upset. Stick to your positives of change, hope, honesty, and judgement. You're right on Iraq, Iran, the economy, health insurance and a whole lot more.

For the moderators, keep control of this thing. Far too many of the previous ones have gotten out of hand (save Russert). I won't be watching as I'm not in PA and have voted in our primary. Why? I'm sick of the whole thing.

"What about Clinton's exaggerations about her 1996 trip to Bosnia . . . ?"

EXAGGERATIONS? EXAGGERATIONS?

To "exaggerate" is to overstate or embellish an event that really happened.

How about "invention," or "fantasy," or, the most accurate word, "lie?"

I think Obama should have hillary as his VP and they can kick Clinton out and Make love not WAR :) those two would be great as husband and wife I think. They both have qualities that the other lacks.

Wonder just how over-the-top Hillary will be in trashing "elitist" Obama for his SanFran comments. I think she runs a real risk of getting too hot and losing any advantage gained by Obama's verbal slip.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Does any one remember what happened in September 2001. People asking Sen Clinton why she was not able to fulfill her campaign promises should be ashamed of themselves. The economy of the entire country went down, and if any one recalls her senate record, she is in the top 5 of the senators requesting funds for their states.

The Obama camp has used Hillary's campaign mix ups for fodder, including the Penn firing/demotion, but I think we all know campaigns, like families, like places of business, like government are far from perfect.

Obama continues to cross over the line which he drew in the beginning, no old style Wash Politics. He's been dancing over that line ever since. We all know you can't play unless you dance over that line.
But at least if you're shelling out, you've got to be able to look into your own housekeeping and see if it measures up.

Well, today it came out in Politico that Obama's exit plans for Iraq are just a little more than a few conflicting plans according to who you're talking to; who's doing the thinking for Obama?

"According to a Canadian government memo, Goolsbee told the consul general that Obama's protectionist rhetoric "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." When the memo was leaked, Goolsbee and Obama claimed that the Canadians did not understand the nuance of Goolsbee's remarks.

Just a few days later, another Obama foreign policy adviser had to be corrected by campaign headquarters. Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning expert on the history of genocide, told the BBC that Obama "will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator" with regard to Iraq strategy. Power was ultimately let go for telling a Scottish interviewer that Hillary Rodham Clinton was a "monster," yet it was the former comment that did more substantive harm to the Obama campaign, illustrative as it is of the widening gap between Obama's rhetoric and what he plans to do as president."

"What is so unusual about Obama's candidacy is that there are repeated instances of his telling the public one thing and his advisers' quietly (and not so quietly) reassuring that such promises mean nothing."

"Obama is, in his own words, something of a Rorschach test. In his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope," he writes, "I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." That has been confirmed thus far during this campaign, and come November, Americans will have to decide if they want a Rorschach test for president."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9631_Page2.html

I think this goes back to the "bitter" point, who are Obama's constituents? Does he work on behalf of the elite San Fransicso donors, or does he represent the middle class working white people?
The donors are akin to a elite liberal lobby group who want Obama to win for their own purposes. But, for him to win, he has to also win over a completely disparate group of Americans. Frankly, I'm not sold. I would much prefer listening to tall story about some thing insignificant that has no consequences, than be deceived about national security or Iraq policy. If you think they carry the same significance, than why hasn't Obama been vetted before now on these issues?

Obama's wearing the flag pin only goes to show the extent he will pander. He wrapped himself in the American flag when the Wright Controversy erupted, and now he is hiding behind the flag pin to escape Bitter Gate.

"Would it be asking too much for the candidates (and whomever moderates this) to stick to real issues -- not non-existent sniper fire in Bosnia, not some ranting pastor, not something someone said (and which was totally misunderstood).

The more they fight and get entrapped by horse race issues, the easier it is for John McCain (basically a good man, but not fit for the presidency) to slide right into the White House.
Wake up, people!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
McCain's 'bounce' in the polls: If McCain's best campaigning is when he's silent, I'm not too worried about him. (I suspect he's hoarding what little cash he's got.)

Debate about issues: They're so close together on the Big Things that what's left are the little things. Besides: it's the little things that people understand.

I would hope that any Fix reader needn't be told that the more specific the campaign promise - the less likely it is to be carried out. That the details are both vitally important and unimaginably dull.

Hillary shot her wad with Obama's foot-in-mouth episode. I like his comment that she's "toughening him up" for the general election.

I think she looks foolish for trying to make such a big deal about it - resulting in not even the smallest blip in the polls. Who's "out of touch" with the common person now?

no shut up that was reported independently by CNN reporters having talked to the audience immediately after the event.

I think Hillary's best bet tonight is not to press the "bitter" remark, but to highlight what a lying hypocrite Obama is. Point out that he claims to represent a new kind of politics, but that he launched the first attack of the campaign and that he has been very quick to go negative in campaign ads. If he were true to his ideals, he wouldn't enter the mud-slinging contest. If he is willing to abandon his principles for the sake of political expediency, why should we trust that he'll stop once he wins? Emphasize that despite his claims to be a bi-partisan unifier, he has the thinnest bi-partisan legislative record of any of the candidates. Note his conspicuous absence from the major bi-partisan efforts in congress. Call him out on his being ranked the most liberal senator.

Hillary is in a bit of a predicament, to be sure. Going negative will only increase her negative rating, but perhaps she can hurt Obama more than she herself will be hurt. Somebody needs to stop Barack, and I can only hope that it will be Hillary now and not McCain later.

Let's stop the B.S. about Obama planting operatives at Clinton events. The only people saying the booing was coming from Obama supporters were Clinton Reps. That's why there hasd been no follow-up to it. No independent sources to verify that assertion. Also, if you recall they were speaking to the same group/audience. What more important is what you didn't hear when see went down that road. CHEERS! What happen to the cheers and applause? People are supposed to be totally offended remember. Didn't hear any support for that. Let's also remember she did get applause when she commented on the issues people came to hear about.

I guess it was also crowd of Obama operatives that made her cut her speech short at the Jefferson/Jackson style dinner.

What has been proven and verified is the Clinton camp used a New Jersey Campaign Volunteer in the "People on the Street" ad aimed at showing how "Pennsylvanians" were offended by Obama.

Vote for the candidate you support, that's your right. But everyone should stop attacking others for exercising their right to do the same!

STEPHANAPOLOUS???, the BEST in the business??, you must have been a previous Clinton spokesman TOO!!!, and that requires some super dodge ball techniques in itself, how is that for suppose