Chris, the concern of the American people is that Obama may be "Trigger Happy" and way too quick to push buttons. That is a great concern, especially in foreign policy, will he get angry as the President and start another war? This time a nuclear war. Today and yesterday he showed to the American public, he is way too quick to attack and not think things through. He claimed to be diplomatic in his approach towards terrorism. Yet his angry retort to take on President Bush and McCain anytime, anywhere sounded more like a gang fighter on the streets than a Presidential response. The American people have spoken and we do not want him for President!

Abolute Zero.An Imaginary number.
What's with everyone trying to figure out something no one will tell the US public anyway.
Maybe it's everyone trying to get in on the action.
In chess it's called check
In US politics its called CircleintheSquare.
Who can hold out the longest wins.
He who loses is the nose.

dePaul Consiglio

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html

That is exactly what I said, here voters will support her even though in the general they will vote for the nominee. He did not campaign in WV hardly at all. If he out spent her it is because she spent nothing because she knew she would win and didn't have the money anyway. Most all of Hillary's campaign in WV consisted of criticizing Obama for ignoring WV. and not coming there so I don't really know what you are talking about. If he spent more then her it still didn't not amount to anything.

))))))))))
He outspent Clinton in WV ans still lost! Check your facts!!!

Posted by: A | May 15, 2008 10:03 PM

"You don't really understand this stuff at all. I would expect that Hillary will have a big win in Kentucky. I would never expect to see them abandon her and make an Obama vote. Voters who have supported her will vote for her as a sort of valentine and a "Thanks for the memories" vote and she deserves it from her supporters, But they will not leave the party they will move over to Obama in the general. There may be a few who say they won't but don't believe it. Nothing that takes place in the up coming elections mean much at all any more. It is all predictable. That is why Obama didn't campaign in WV. It would have been a waste of money. I personally think he should have because he is trying to move voters for the general. Even though they won't vote for him in the primary they will feel better moving over to him if the see and hear him. I hope he does a little more campaigning in Kentucky for that reason even if it doesn't get him one extra vote in the primary."

He outspent Clinton in WV ans still lost! Check your facts!!!

Well it would seem that the Clintonites are hard at work here, is she out finding some more "Hard Working Americans, White Americans"

HRC is a race Baiter and a government Dog Catcher job is to good for her.

drindl - "same difference."

Which is to say meaningless. The fact that Kennedy sat with Kruschev or Reagan sat with Gorby means zero with respect to a future president sitting with the leaders of Iran or Hamas. But I do find it quite amusing that the left is using Reagan as an example of sane diplomacy. In his instance, it only worked because the USSR installed a sane dictator in Gorby, Reagan came to the presidential table with a history as a staunch anti-communist, he went on the offensive in building deterrents to the USSR and strengthening the US military and convinced a large chunk of the world that communismn belonged in the dustbin of history. All that happened prior to any meeting with Gorby. And again, he never met with Castro, Qaadafi, Khomeni and a large list of other terrorists.

oops.. have been doing that all day. kennedy had summit with kruschev. reagain had summit with gorbachev.

same difference.

With all due respect. Kruschev died like 10 years before Reagen was even president. How can you people post and be so uninformed.

((((((((((((((((
"I think Barack Obama needs to sit down and explain why he wants to talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror"

You mean someone like Kruschev, whom at the time had several thousand armed nuclear weapons pointed at our country, when Reagan had a summit with him? that was plenty terrifying, I can tell you. A little scarier than Hamas.

So you think, in other words, that Reagan was wrong?

And also that Condeleeza Rice is wrong, because she wants to do the same thing as Obama?

Posted by: drindl | May 15, 2008 2:25 PM

drindl,

Your story about the FEC chairman is from February and he is not longer the FEC Chair. The FEC has to vote on the interpretation of McCain's actions concerning funding for the PRIMARIES. There are not enough people on the FEC for this to occur. The nominations for new FEC members are making their way through the Senate. Once this happens, there will be enough members to hold a quorum and to actually be able to vote on things, like this interpretation of rules (for PRIMARY funding, not GE funding). It is an issue, after the fact and nowhere near as compelling as Obama going back on his pledge to the American people.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) delivered a speech today in which he provided his vision of what the world might look like by the year 2013 if he is elected president. In 2013, McCain claimed, "the Iraq War has been won," "Iraq is a functioning democracy," a "newly formed League of Democracies" has gathered to "to stop the genocide" in Sudan, and the U.S. "has experienced several years of robust economic growth." One reporter told McCain that his speech sounded more like "a magic carpet ride."

and all diseases will be cured and everyone will have a pony.

More boneheaded GOP blundering:

"NBC News reports "that as of this week American military and civilian officials have cut off all contact with controversial Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi" due to "'unauthorized' contacts with Iran's government, an allegation Chalabi denies." Chalabi has been a darling of the administration's neocons, drumming up reports of WMDs during the lead-up to the Iraq war and, more recently, promoting the surge. As recently as October, administration officials were promoting Chalabi as "a central figure in the latest U.S. strategy" and "an important part of the process" in Iraq."

2:09 p.m. post

"Howard Dean is Obama's great ally, and he will do whatever is necessary to help him win.

Howard Dean is Obama's worst nightmare, and will use the Rules committee to do whatever is necessary to keep him from winning.

I have covered all my bases. Please send my Fix t-shirt now. Please ensure the hole in the bottom is big enough for the puppeteer to fit his hand in."

'The nation's top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall.'

Mark I am confused as to what you and Davel are talking about. McCain has been actively trying to withdraw from public financing but the FEC won't let him.

proud, you're the R base -- and your brain-damaged parrotings of imbecilic limbaugh drool is why your party is on a losing streak and going down the toilet.

reagan negociated with a man who might well have been oneof the bigger terrorists in history. but idiots like you can't deal with the truth.

drindl - "You mean someone like Kruschev, whom at the time had several thousand armed nuclear weapons pointed at our country, when Reagan had a summit with him?"

A Reagan summit with Kruschev is something I am unaware of. I do know that Reagan did not meet with Qaadafi, Castro, any leaders of Iran or Syria. Did he directly talk with the leader of the USSR? Eventually. After years of diplomacy and changes in leadership gave the two leaders something to actually talk about. But it is not a one size fits all world. Just because you sit down face to face with leader A does not mean you have to or should do that with leader B.

drindl, "Aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran is an oft-stated proposal by Obama, in fact he said he would directly negotiate with Iran, Syria or other terrorist-sponsoring states in a debate, and Obama is in the same camp as Jimmy Carter - in favor sitting down and negotiating with state sponsors of terror and proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Funny how those hostages were released by Iran on right after President Reagan was sworn in, after all that talking by Jimmy Carter.

Now that Hamas has endorsed Mr. Obama's campaign, maybe he'd better get right over there and pick up the $2,300 check personally and have a sit down. Or maybe he'd be more comfortable with sending his envoy, Rev Wright.

Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a "terrible mistake" for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.
Sen. Hillary Clinton vowed to stay in the race, saying she's "not going anywhere."

"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is--obviously I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

bsimon - ahhh, you may be right on the gesture that Mark talks about. On McCain and his position on public financing, he has been clear and is on the winning side of this, should it become an issue. Obama is reduced to a "depending what the meaning of the phrase 'publicly financed general election' is" argument. The debate is already framed, successfully by McCain. Arguing about some primary rule and change of finance strategy during the primary is not in the same league as "Mr. New Kind of Politician, you pledged to the public you would do A and instead are doing B". That said, I don't think campaign finance really plays a big part with the general public so I don't think there will be a huge amount of traction with this.

McCain - "To us, we'll obviously keep our promise, and that is that if Obama commits to public financing , then we will too. The point is that I made a promise and so did he, and apparently he may not keep his. One of the things we want to change in Washington is, when I'm president, I will keep my promises. Apparently he won't."

Their problem with bringing in the big bucks is a corollary to why Sen. Obama is doing so well among independents, imho. The American electorate is simply sick of this kind of politics!

By yet again matching his words with deeds, Obama has offered us yet another opportunity to follow his lead and put some civility back into our civic discussions.

I pray the media takes him (and US) up on that offer!

Obama:
"Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/obama-wright-larry-sinclair-and-a-murdered-tucc-gay-choir-director/

"I think Barack Obama needs to sit down and explain why he wants to talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror"

You mean someone like Kruschev, whom at the time had several thousand armed nuclear weapons pointed at our country, when Reagan had a summit with him? that was plenty terrifying, I can tell you. A little scarier than Hamas.

So you think, in other words, that Reagan was wrong?

And also that Condeleeza Rice is wrong, because she wants to do the same thing as Obama?

Dem Now -- why is it that so many republicans are illiterate? just wondering.

Karl Rove- The GOP Must Stand For Something:

'Why is it tough sledding for Republicans? Public revulsion at GOP scandals was a large factor in the party's 2006 congressional defeat. Some brand damage remains, as does the downward pull of the president's approval ratings. But the principal elements are the Iraq war and a struggling economy.'

That is just it, Uncle Karl- the GOP does in fact stand for things. It stands for the Iraq war, it stands for $126 dollar a barrel oil, it stands for $4 a gallon gasoline, it stands for bloated budgets and huge deficits and diddling pages and secret detention and opposition to stem cell research and hostility to homosexuality and torture and domestic surveillance and permanent war and the Bankruptcy Bill and Terri Schiavo and the Prescription Drug Plan and the failed response to Katrina and blocking SCHIP and the breakdown of the military and and Global Warming denial and Guantanamo Bay and torture and the AG scandal and, most of all, it stands for partisan name-calling while the country is flushed down the drain.

See- you all stand for lots of things.

Have fun in November!

Dave! - bsimon correctly noted what I considered to be the "gesture". McC has also tried to put the wet blanket on these 527s.

But I was also voicing the same concern as you - that BHO would not follow up by fulfilling his GE pledge.

They saw the latest commercial with Obama in a church, presumed Catholic,standing with the cross behind him. Then thougt this is just too much hypocracy, even for Obama, the eiptome of hypocracy.

Just FYI - And they need to stick Wright in this commercial with a sound bite of his G D America...then show Obama and Michelle in the pews! The AUDACITY of THIS MAN! And Obama's campaign critisized Huchabee!

NO OBAMA EVER!!!!!!!!!!

Let me Translate this post

Obama's people have Howard Dean to run their lying and deception television commercials for them, so they do not want the 527s.

This is nothing more than a ploy.....

You guys are going to get shredded.

Your best move now is to seal ALL the delegates from Michigan and Florida and try to defuse that mess - if you don't and the media reports your actual positions on the issue, you are TOAST.

Umm Translator

What's wrong, is Axelrod out to lunch and you don't know what to say?

That makes no sense, even the context of your normal twisted rantings.

.

Umm Translator

What's wrong, is Axelrod out to lunch and you don't know what to say?

That makes no sense, even the context of your normal twisted rantings.

.

Obama doesn't need any 527s when he's got his lap dog Howard Dean spouting off every day in a pathetic attempt to inject himself into yet another general election.

Today, Howard Dean reared his ugly mouth again and did Obama's bidding...

President Bush said in a speech to the Israeli parliament:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," the president said.

Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, a McCain supporter, heralded the president's remarks.

"President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel,' and that holds that- if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers -- they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America's friends and America's enemies, and not confuse the two," he said.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean, grossly overestimating his own importance, said John McCain should disavow the president's remarks.

"Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region. If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible," he said in a statement.

McCain countered that Obama's approach to foreign policy is ripe for questioning.

"I think Barack Obama needs to sit down and explain why he wants to talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, who wants to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust. That is what I think that Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people," he said while on a bus to the airport.

"It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama that shows naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of Israel. My question is what does he want to talk about?"

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/15/white-house-denies-bush-targeted-obama-in-speech-to-israeli-knesset/

1:36 p.m. post

"I have nothing to say that expands on or intelligently refutes Chris's post. My spin has been queered by truth and reason, and I am striking blindly like a four-year old swinging for a pinata.

This place sucks when the adults put me in my place."

The lopsided Obama win in Oregon next week will blunt the supposed impact of a big Kentucky win for HRC.

Hey pjf0226, Translator and kreuz_missile

All three of you are at Obama's headquarters in Chicago, aren't you?

Why don't you just admit it ????

Where is David Axelrod and David Plouffe - are they both there.

Do you keep going back to them to figure out what to say ???

Let's be serious here.

You don't really understand this stuff at all. I would expect that Hillary will have a big win in Kentucky. I would never expect to see them abandon her and make an Obama vote. Voters who have supported her will vote for her as a sort of valentine and a "Thanks for the memories" vote and she deserves it from her supporters, But they will not leave the party they will move over to Obama in the general. There may be a few who say they won't but don't believe it. Nothing that takes place in the up coming elections mean much at all any more. It is all predictable. That is why Obama didn't campaign in WV. It would have been a waste of money. I personally think he should have because he is trying to move voters for the general. Even though they won't vote for him in the primary they will feel better moving over to him if the see and hear him. I hope he does a little more campaigning in Kentucky for that reason even if it doesn't get him one extra vote in the primary.

)))))))))))))))))
Hillary's next landslide, in Kentucky next Tuesday, will erase memories of Edwards' endorsement of Obama. The endorsement also rules out Edwards as a possible successor in the event the Obama campaign implodes.

A string of Hillary landslides will offer definitive proof of Obama's electability problem. If Hillary runs the table, the supers will flee the Obama camp. So where do they turn then?

nazi germany before world war 2, compare the mcCains and clintons. the clintons working class american have their values, sticking cigars in someone child, maybe west virginias do, but not working class white american that made this country great have none those clintons vaiues. McCain is just another VET that suffer from PTS, just another VET also needs angry management.....( do not forget the little cropa ////

MEDIA BUZZ: "THE GORE WATCH IS ON." BUT IT COULD BE THAT HIS CONTINUED SILENCE ON AN ENDORSEMENT TELLS THE REAL STORY...

WHY AL GORE REMAINS VERY MUCH IN THE MIX...

Hillary's next landslide, in Kentucky next Tuesday, will erase memories of Edwards' endorsement of Obama. The endorsement also rules out Edwards as a possible successor in the event the Obama campaign implodes.

A string of Hillary landslides will offer definitive proof of Obama's electability problem. If Hillary runs the table, the supers will flee the Obama camp. So where do they turn then?

To the last man standing: Al Gore.

That's right, Fixistas. Al Gore. Let me say it again: If Obama implodes, the supers will not turn to Hillary. In that event, there's no one else left but Gore. Al Gore. The man who won the popular vote in 2000. Al Gore. The man who showed the political world how to rehabilitate a career many left for dead.

Al Gore: more likely than ever to save the party in the wake of an Obama meltdown, now that Edwards has thrown his lot with Barack.

The media already has declared that yesterday's Edwards endorsement eclipses Hillary's West Virginia win. Next Tuesday, the pundits will start singing a different tune: that Hillary's the new "comeback kid."

Then the supers will huddle and decide, no, we cannot let Hillary triumph over reason and moderation; we can't turn the party back over to Billary, not with the way they have comported themselves in this campaign. Hillary's fond of saying that no Democrat has ever won the presidency without winning West Virginia. But it's also true that no Democrat in modern history has won the White House without the black vote. And if Hillary's the nominee, black Democrats will sit on their hands. Even if Obama were to accept the vice presidential slot on a Hillary-led ticket (which seems highly unlikely), many blacks would sit it out, or even vote Republican, to punish the party for not sticking with their man.

So with no other options, it's quite plausible, even likely, that an Obama implosion will lead the supers to draft Gore. If an Obama meltdown doesn't damage him too badly, Gore would pick Obama as his running mate, thus preserving much of the black vote.

A Gore-Obama ticket would represent an unstoppable force, a sure winner. That cannot be said of a ticket led by Obama or Hillary.

But, you say, this scenario hinges upon a most unlikely scenario -- that Obama will be revealed to be unelectable, unfit to be awarded the nomination. But is that really so unlikely? An eleventh-hour string of Hillary landslides will result in wholesale defections of superdelegates from the Obama camp. And what if another Rev. Wright emerges from Obama's past? The super don't want to give it to Hillary -- so where else do they turn?

All at once Fixistas: They have nowhere else to turn but to Al Gore -- the once and future next President of the United States.

Go ahead: laugh; deride; guffah. But all other options will have run out, unless you believe that the supers will turn the nomination over to someone who describes her supporters as "hard-working Americans. White Americans." Hillary has lost the black vote, and even Obama on the ticket couldn't save her from a most deserved exclusion from the contest.

So in the event that Hillary runs the table and Obama loses his sheen as a result of a new scandal -- or just the perception that he can't win the votes of white working-class Democrats -- prepare to welcome back The Gore-acle. He's all the Dems may have left.

Dave! I think the gesture to which Mark refers is:
"the result of the stated desire of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign to not direct funds to outside organizations"

Whatever criticism there is of Sen Obama, regarding publicly funding the campaign, Sen McCain is likewise not immune. Didn't he first accept public funding, then try to 'unaccept' it?

I don't think BHO has a sliver of intention to take the public financing route
Posted by: Dave! | May 15, 2008 12:45 PM

I agree. But he better be ready for the issue to be raised time and time again, if he doesn't take the public financing. I feel this has the potential to be a big fall issue and a point McCain/GOP could hammer him on.

There will have to be a little bit of negative campaigning because Mccain is a fraud and an illusion of honesty. The public deserves to know the truth about this fraud, wife beater, drunk, drug user, political do nothing whose career was bought for him by his father-in-law. Not all negative campaigning is lies, the public deserves to know what they are getting. Same with Obama if there is something really there beyond innuendo and out and out lies fine. The public is smart enough to see the difference. Mccain on the other hand really is a bad guy and a phony and it will come out. Mccain is not who people think he is, not even close. This election will ruin him for good and expose this fraud.

MarkInAustin - "This was a well placed gesture, but it could lead to either of two contradictory denouments."

What gesture? There were no funds available to do anything. There is no real gesture if you are forced to do it.

I don't think BHO has a sliver of intention to take the public financing route, dispite the following quote from him last November - "Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

I'll believe it when I see their financial records after the campaign is over. Odds are the Dems are just shifting money from one pocket to another--probably after all the publicity had leaked out, just like they do with lobbyist donations.
-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

I actually first reported this story: http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5637

I'd appreciate a correction.

OK, BUT. I am going to be most interested to see if a race can be one without some level of negative campaigning. Everyone says they hate negative campaigns. Negative campaigns work.
About the time we here about the "October Surprise", I will bet that Obama wished someone would spend 40 million dollars to show McCain in a negative light. This will be something for you Obama supporters to watch (and learn from). Let's see if your candidate is really a new kind of politician, or if he has just got you suckered. My bet is that you have been suckered.

And this poll says it all. You won't believe these results!
(you have to vote to see them)

http://www.votenic.com

This was a well placed gesture, but it could lead to either of two contradictory denouments.

Is it a signal to the McC campaign that BHO is going to also limit himself to public funding in the GE, or does it signify exactly the opposite?

"If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can't Stop Her":
Perhaps an Obama-Clinton ticket is more likely than not: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html

ruby writes
"I love these high-minded pronouncements made in the cool April breeze."

Yo, ruby. Its May. In fact, its mid-May - the cool April breezes are long gone, and stagnant, oppresive summer heat is just around the corner.

While interesting, the discussion pales in relevance to the speculation on whether The Fix will recognize bsimon for his prescient prediction that the WV storyline would be "WV doesn't matter." Will bsimon be able to replace/supplement threadbare concert t-shirts with every political junkie's must-have piece of collectible clothing? Time will tell!

i am surprised that any one of the Democratic-party line persuasion would try to act as if negative campaigning is the sole provenance of Republicans. Democratic political ads in general are brutal. In the not so distant past, some in the South have been flat out racist and disgusting, and I am not talking about white supremacist ads, while here in the North, the ads seem to be more of the preemptive dirty trick type...sort of like when your brother hit you and you hit back, but you get in trouble because you were caught. I don't know who is controlling the Obama campaign, but from what I see, be it George Soras, Dean, Pelosi, there is a side-kick doing the dirty work. The sidekick, or DNC or the NY Times....are dishing up anything they think will serve as dirt....which leaves the good Senator with clean hands. So much for Change or coming together... as far as extending a hand across the aisle....sure as long as those on the other end are lip syncing along with the DNC song sheet. Differences of opinion are clearly not to be tolerated. I would like someone to explain to me why, if Congress is even less Popular than the President, does the DNC see that as a good thing? Change can go Why, if Obama is reaching out does he pretend that John McCain is the second coming of Pres. Bush....if that is all he has, it's a pretty stupid tactic, and come November, he will be on the outside looking in in November..

Oh, I love these high-minded pronouncements made in the cool April breeze. Come September Dems will be up to their butts in mud, and sinking fast if they don't pick some up and throw it back. Nothing's funny about peace, love and understanding if that's all Obama plans to run with. Let's hope the Daley machine knows better.

Our Only Hope, is Hillary Clinton trustworthy?

Often the outside groups can detract from the candidate's message and cause more harm. I know in 2004 there were so many outside groups calling the same lists as the Democrats that voters got really riled. I would knock on doors that just moments before were knocked on by a union or Move.on. The people inside would want to strangle me. And campaign ads that go negative can really be used against Obama even if he has no control over it. As long as Obama responds quickly to the other side's attacks, he should control the message.

Obama apparently prefers to have the DNC directly lie about McCain's position on Iraq.

.

Bill Clinton in 2004:

"Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."

Sounds like Sen. Obama's campaign...the Hope of our Nation and he wants the message to stay positive. Obviously his supporters are in agreement. Negative ads are finally being recognized for what they are...a poor attempt to to drag candidates down instead of lifting the nation up.

"We the People" will no longer be directed by the lowest common denominator. These attack ads show us ALL the worst in ourselves.

I have made a pledge that I will never again be led by negative advertising. Forever onward, I will look more carefully at the victims OPPONENT...thinking, 'What is so bad about this candidate that people who are on his side feel they have to draw attention away him?' and 'What is so wrong with his policy positions that his campaign can't stand on it's own merits?'