(Politics) Clinton campaign making Obama "blacker"

[paularoid]

Let me state right out right here that I have NO PREFERENCE (yet) of either of the democratic candidates. Here is what's being reported elsewhere at the Daily Kos.

-----

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/131156/5021

Clinton campaign making Obama "blacker"
by kos
Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:30:59 AM PST

Or maybe more Muslim? The sordid details are in this diary (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408) by Troutnut, but it can be distilled down to this:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/hillaryracebaiting.jpg

As you can see, the campaign ad has darkened Obama's skin tone, while stretching the video horizontally to give Obama a wider nose.

Asked about this by Fox News, the Clinton campaign responded (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/04/questions-raised-whether-hillary-ad-darkened-obama/):


Despite the strong similarities between the ad on the DailyKos site and the original ad on Clinton’s Web site, Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said he spoke with the campaign’s chief ad maker, Mandy Grunwald, who said emphatically the ad on DailyKos "was not their ad."

"We don’t know what is up there, but it is not our ad," Carson said.


Yet as Troutnut notes, the ad is right Here (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/145.aspx) at Clinton's campaign website, so the Clinton campaign is clearly lying.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Obama_ad_Clinton.jpg

Classy outfit, those guys.

[Wildflower Fever]

This is what I, and many others have been saying. All you have to do is look at the statements/ads made by Obama about Clinton, vs those made by Hillary about Obama. NOBODY can deny she is being negative just like Bush did in his campaigns, and much of it is of a personal or character issue, not policy defects. There were Bill's comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, Hillary poo-pooing the tide of energy and hope at Obama's events, and a lot of loose-lipped ambiguity by Hillary and/or her surrogates. Is he muslim? Is he wearing traditional African garb in that photo? Did he plagarize? Should he reject Farrakhan, not just renounce him (this one was just stupid)? It goes on and on, just like the whining after the debates, and snarky comments that often drew a chorus of boos. But the worst, in my opinion, is the republican style fearmongering of her "3AM Phone Call" ads, simply horrible. To use her vernacular, shame on YOU, Hillary Clinton. Doing whatever it takes to win is not a trait evident in the Obama campaign, I'm gonna have to say b-bye to ya' now.:p

[DaveM]

Unfortunately, politicians use negative campaigns because studies have demonstrated again and again that they work. I hope Barack Obama will play the gentleman and not stoop to that level. But given past history....I won't be at all surprised to see it, especially if he ends up taking on McCain.

[Judy]

I have been a Clinton supporter from the beginning, but, lately, I'm really wondering if I'm throwing my money at the right person. We have had eight years of fear-mongering with the current administration and I'm sorely disgusted that the Clinton camp is taking the same approach with the "red phone" campaign - and I guess, this "blacker" campaign is a fear-mongering approach in its own twisted right.
Not that it matters to the camp, but have sent an e-mail indicating that my money and support will stop if this approach continues.

[paularoid]

Here's what David Sirota

David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
has to say:

March 5, 2008 10:33 AM
The Clinton-Lieberman Connection (http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/03/the_clintonlieberman_connectio.html)

Confusion and misinformation are two of the most powerful weapons in a desperate politician's arsenal. They were used by Joe Lieberman in the 2006 general election against Ned Lamont, and exit polls suggest that they helped Hillary Clinton blast her way through yesterday's primary in Ohio.

Over the last few weeks, Clinton has been telling Ohio voters she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement - an agreement that has become a symbol of corrupt economic policies to many working-class voters. Clinton has made these claims expecting everyone to forget her speeches over the last decade trumpeting NAFTA as a great success.

Her direct quotes praising NAFTA repeatedly are not up for interpretation - and neither are her absurd claims to "have been against NAFTA from the beginning." We're talking about pure, unadulterated lying here - and lying with a purpose: To confuse enough voters into thinking she actually did oppose NAFTA and that her strong support for NAFTA is somehow the same as Barack Obama's longtime opposition to the pact. Last night's results prove the scheme worked.

CBS News reports that "among Ohio voters who expressed that trade takes jobs away, 55 percent supported Clinton." The Associated Press has some more details:

"Clinton's past support of the North American Free Trade Agreement didn't hurt her in Ohio where most voters think trade with other countries has cost the state jobs. Blue-collar workers and voters who live in union households backed Clinton as did voters in northern Ohio where manufacturing job losses have been staggering the past decade, according to exit polls for The Associated Press and television networks. Clinton won nearly six in 10 votes from union households in Ohio's Democratic primary Tuesday and the same number among people who earn less than $50,000 a year."
If this all sounds familiar, that's because it is. Here's an excerpt of a 2006 article I wrote for In These Times about the Lieberman-Lamont race:

"As the Associated Press confirmed, Lieberman's margin was provided by a segment of voters who are strongly against the war, but who (wrongly) believed Lieberman is strongly against the war. Their misperception was no accident. Immediately after the primary, Lieberman unleashed an ad campaign to portray himself as anti-war, airing an ad where he says to the camera "I want to help end the war in Iraq."...Lieberman won the election not by defending the Iraq War, but by successfully convincing a key segment of voters that he was anti-war...[Lamont's] internal polling showed that somewhere between 12 and 15 percent of the population said they simultaneously opposed the war and supported Lieberman's position on the war--a signal that Lieberman's confusion campaign was working."
Clinton was actually even more brazen than Lieberman. Not only did she lie about her record, she actually went on the offensive attacking Obama over the very trade deal she has long championed, "rais[ing] doubts about whether he was committed to reworking NAFTA," as the AP noted. To use the Lieberman-Lamont analogy, that's would be like Lieberman not only pretending to be against the war, but actually attacking Lamont for not opposing the war more strongly. Even Lieberman wasn't cravenly dishonest enough to do that - but Clinton was.

The tragedy, of course, is that when such tactics are validated - whether on the war in Connecticut or on trade in Ohio - it encourages candidates and politicians to continue lying about the most important issues. And those lies end up polluting the debate and ultimately preventing any real change. If politicians can be rewarded for lying about their record on the war and on globalization, then they will feel emboldened to keep lying when those rhetorical debates turn into legislative negotiations.

----- note -----

You should really go to the article itself because there are many links within it that document everything said. I did not want to go to the trouble of including them all due to laziness on my part. :o
http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2008/03/the_clintonlieberman_connectio.html

[paularoid]

Hillary: If you want to see my tax returns, you're acting like Ken Starr

From The Hill (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-camp-accuses-obama-of-ken-starr-tactics-2008-03-06.html)

Ann Lewis and Howard Wolfson, top aides to Clinton, held a conference call with reporters in which they said that Obama’s calling on the former first lady to release her tax returns were similar to attacks from the GOP that the Clintons have faced before.

“I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is a way to win a Democratic primary for the presidency,” Wolfson said.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Especially after it was Hillary who made "Mr. Lazio, release those tax returns" a key part of her 2000 Senate campaign against Republican Rick Lazio. Back then Hillary said it was "frankly disturbing" (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hillary-attacked-her-senate-opponent.html) that a candidate would waffle over when they were going to release their returns. But now that she's the one waffling, saying she may release them "around" April 15 (if we're lucky), suddenly it's the Spanish Inquisition to expect her to be true to her previous word. (Obama released his returns a year ago.)

And a quick word about the "around" April 15th quasi-promise. Does around April 15 mean before or after the final important primary in Pennsylvania on April 22? And even if it's before April 22, how much before? Is Hillary planning on dumping 7 years worth of tax documents on the media with only days to go before the Pennsylvania primary, so there's no time for the media to fully vet the documents, no time for Democratic voters to find out what's in them and have all the facts before voting? Why not just release them now? It costs a dime to go to Kinkos. What is Hillary hiding that she would invoke Monica - Monica! - in order to change the subject?

Hillary's campaign also argues that there are 20 years of her tax returns already released to the public. Well, yes - from 1980 to 2000. It's now 2008. We don't get to see the last 8 years? That's an odd standard, and in any case, she didn't demand in 2000 that Rick Lazio only release his returns pre-1992.

One more thing. This of course now means that Hillary was the one acting like Kenn Starr when she demanded that Lazio release his returns.

[Eva]

Unfortunately, politicians use negative campaigns because studies have demonstrated again and again that they work. I hope Barack Obama will play the gentleman and not stoop to that level. But given past history....I won't be at all surprised to see it, especially if he ends up taking on McCain.
I so hate that in politics. Instead of telling what your party or your politics can do, politicians just try to make the others look bad. And that way they are not saying anything about themselves or their party. Yeah, I know it works, but in the end I don't want to vote for a party because the rest is so bad but because I agree with the party I am voting for. Or at least, I agree with most major viewpoints that are important to me.

Last year I was in the Rotterdam gay communityhouse and there was a discussion going on about townpolitics and what all the parties actually do, or plan to do for gay people (in general) There the same thing happened. I called the politicians on it several times. Said I wasn't interested in her view on the others. I want to know about what her party can do in a positive way. What plans does the party have? I think it is an annoying habit in politics. I know it works. But somehow if a politician resumes to that, they lose all my sympathy.

By the way, the discussion was supposed to be 45 minutes. I had so many questions and discussionpoints (that seemed to irritate the politicians very much) that I streched it to 90 minutes. Yeah, I know. Not very polite of me and not everybody seemed to appreciate it. Not even the organisers and the audience. The woman with the microphone had exactly the wrong questions I think and she was not very good at what she was doing (in my eyes) I said something about it and she handed me the microphone saying "You do it then". I am still sorry I haven't taken that microphone from her then and grill the politicians with their airbubbles.

Eva

PS: have I stolen the thread? I hope not... I meant it to be about politics in general. With an example of what I meant. My apologies if I took the attention off the Clinton - Obama race.

[Oak Kitten]

This is what I, and many others have been saying. All you have to do is look at the statements/ads made by Obama about Clinton, vs those made by Hillary about Obama. NOBODY can deny she is being negative just like Bush did in his campaigns, and much of it is of a personal or character issue, not policy defects. There were Bill's comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, Hillary poo-pooing the tide of energy and hope at Obama's events, and a lot of loose-lipped ambiguity by Hillary and/or her surrogates. Is he muslim? Is he wearing traditional African garb in that photo? Did he plagarize? Should he reject Farrakhan, not just renounce him (this one was just stupid)? It goes on and on, just like the whining after the debates, and snarky comments that often drew a chorus of boos. But the worst, in my opinion, is the republican style fearmongering of her "3AM Phone Call" ads, simply horrible. To use her vernacular, shame on YOU, Hillary Clinton. Doing whatever it takes to win is not a trait evident in the Obama campaign, I'm gonna have to say b-bye to ya' now.:p


Equating Hillary's campaign tactics to those of Rove-Bush is absurd. So Bill Clinton noted that Jesse Jackson won some primaries but did not win the nomination. Guess what? That is an historical fact, as a number of people have subsequently pointed out. Why is that "negative?"

I find this "Obama-mania" to be quite discomfiting as well, because I see no basis for it. As he wrote in his own autobiography, "I am a blank slate onto which people are projecting their hopes and dreams." Now that is probably not the exact wording, but it is the gist. Well, that may be all that some people need, but I need more substance. His support seems predicated on emotion, not substance. Hence anytime anyone tries to challenge him on anything, his hyper-sensitive supporters scream "racism!" or "negative campaigning!" Give me a break.

Has anyone actually proven that it was the Clinton campaign that released that photo of Obama in traditional dress, or is that just more blogosphere BS?
I would put the "blackening up" allegation in the same category. Beware the bloggers, they will inject no end of superfluous garbage into this campaign to stir people up, and there is no one to hold them accountable. No accountability means no credibility in my book.

Ask Joe Biden about plagiarism accusations. That is what derailed his first run at the Presidency. He ripped off British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speech, trying to pass it off as his own personal experience. I don't think what Obama did was anywhere near that level, and as a result, the charge went nowhere.

Guess what? Obama is playing the same game, demanding Clinton release her tax returns. What the hell does that have to do with anything? He certainly is not above playing politics, as much as he tries to present himself that way.

And the White House Phone ad is "Fear mongering?" Another exaggerated overreaction by Obama backers because the ad was effective in getting people to think about the responsibility that goes with the job. Fear mongering is stuff like the Willie Horton ad used against Dukakis in '88 - a masterpiece of fear mongering AND racism. An ad that points out we live in a dangerous world (and does anyone seriously think we don't?) and that it might be important to elect someone prepared to deal with that reality is NOT fear mongering. If Obama supporters can't handle this stuff, just wait to see what the Republican sleaze machine is going to let loose from their arsenal.

I have followed politics for a long time, and there has been very little negative campaigning in this race. In fact, I think that is why this trivial stuff is getting so blown out of proportion. I do not advocate or condone negative campaigning, but it is a reality. I think that when the Republicans gear up with their traditional sleaze assault, it will backfire on them because most people are FED UP with this Rovian crap. But whomever gets the Democratic nomination better know how to fight back, instead of just whine that "they're not playing fair!"

Oak

[Judy]

I think it was during the last debate when they were trying to pin down Clinton on the release of her tax returns she indicated that the protocol is that once the person gains the nomination, THEN they are required to release the info. That being said, once she gets the nomination, the paperwork will be forthcoming. I really do believe that when it comes to knowing the political system inside out, then that would be Clinton.

[paularoid]

Now that I've been informed that they BOTH supported Lieberman (what a fiasco that turned out to be :mad: ) over Lamont I'm still on the fence here but I'm led to question why it is that generally it's so much easier to find "dirt" on Clinton than it is on Obama? I know there's plenty of "dirt" to go 'round and one can dig up dirt on both of them, but it appears that there's a lot more to dig where Clinton is concerned than there is for Obama. Is this perhaps because she's been in the public eye for so much longer maybe? Or is it perhaps because there's more dirt to be dug in the first place? Or maybe his minions are better at hiding it than hers? Is he overall more "clean"?

I'm not trying to cast doubts either way. I'm still on the fence where both candidates are concerned and I'll support whichever one comes out as the nominee but this is a personal observance of mine (perhaps mistaken) that I feel is a very valid one.

Why is it so much easier for me to find and dig up "dirt" on Clinton than for Obama?

[Wildflower Fever]

I for one am not voting based on gender or race, yet I understand the viewpoint of women in this election. But, this has become a very emotional and divisive campaign for democrats. There are times I feel that when I criticize Hillary I'm automatically considered a chauvinist, yet when someone criticizes Obama I don't automatically consider them racist. If women feel a sense of urgency for a woman to be elected, imagine the way minorities feel about Obama. Still, I know quite a few African Americans who are Hillary supporters. The tax issue with Hillary came up before Obama pressed her on it, but I guess turnabout is fair play. I stand by my opinion that Hillary is running a less than honorable campaign, and it should be noted that early on I was focused on supporting her bid. My support for Obama has come as a direct result of her actions.

[lucille]

yet I understand the viewpoint of women in this election.


Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Wildflower Fever]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Que? I really feel I do. I was raised by a wonderfully intelligent and open-minded mother, who I'm very close with. We discuss these issues freqently, and although she's an Obama supporter (voted for him at caucus), she had a hard time not voting for Hillary. She has always opposed statements about strong women that make them look "bitchy", such as is admittedly done to Hillary often- when males are seen as macho when they exhibit strength. So yes, although I have more testosterone than estrogen, I think I have a good idea of their sentiments in this election.

[Eva]

I was wondering about that...
- So if Obama gets a lot of black votes because he is black*
- And Clinton gets a lot of female votes because she is a woman*
Who do black women vote for? This can't be an easy choice

*I usually vote for women too. Also because yes, I hope they have more insight and more heart for women's issues. And because I think it's about time that more women have higher positions in politics. The Netherlands have never had a female minister-president either. Of course I only vote for anyone if I think this person is a knowledgeable politician and his or her ideas are good for the country.

Eva

PS: please enlighten me... Barack Obama is black. Why is making him appear more black a tactic to make him look bad? Whoever did it. What's wrong with being black? Make someone look like a fraud, as not knowledgeable or as not intelligent seems worse to me. Ach, maybe I am just being naieve... I just don't like political games.

[GodSistah]

I was wondering about that...
- So if Obama gets a lot of black votes because he is black*
- And Clinton gets a lot of female votes because she is a woman*
Who do black women vote for? This can't be an easy choice

*I usually vote for women too. Also because yes, I hope they have more insight and more heart for women's issues. And because I think it's about time that more women have higher positions in politics. The Netherlands have never had a female minister-president either. Of course I only vote for anyone if I think this person is a knowledgeable politician and his or her ideas are good for the country.

Eva

PS: please enlighten me... Barack Obama is black. Why is making him appear more black a tactic to make him look bad? Whoever did it. What's wrong with being black? Make someone look like a fraud, as not knowledgeable or as not intelligent seems worse to me. Ach, maybe I am just being naieve... I just don't like political games.

Actually he's part black. His Mother is white.
Of course there is nothing wrong with being black.
But regardless, the US is still a racist/sexist country.

As well, the media has no problem putting out
the butchest possibly pictures of Hillary Clinton.
So again, what's wrong with being butch? Nothing...
but...again racisim, sexism, homophobia...words, words, words...

~Andrea~

[Eva]

Being butch is awesome! :cool:
Show me those pictures!

Eva

[GodSistah]

Being butch is awesome! :cool:
Show me those pictures!

Eva

LOL!

Me and Elliott told you she was hot!

Actually, I should have put the word butch in quotations,
as there are as many differing opinions of what is butch,
as there is of what is feminine.

In all seriousness though...
We are still in a country where any strong woman
is considered by many [media] as either a bitch or a dyke
...but mainly a bitchy dyke.

Of course then Hillary had to
officially come out and say,
"I am not a lesbian!!!"

After that I just thought she was a dumb bitch.

hee hee hee...

;)

~Andrea~

[lucille]

All I can say is Go Hillary WF, It's admirable of you to say you understand a woman's view point, but you never will unless you live as a woman. A question - would you rather be a man or a woman? Women are the largest minority in the world, and a great percentage of this minority live under a man's absolute control.

[paularoid]

Now that I've been informed that they BOTH supported Lieberman (what a fiasco that turned out to be :mad: ) over Lamont I'm still on the fence here but I'm led to question why it is that generally it's so much easier to find "dirt" on Clinton than it is on Obama? I know there's plenty of "dirt" to go 'round and one can dig up dirt on both of them, but it appears that there's a lot more to dig where Clinton is concerned than there is for Obama. Is this perhaps because she's been in the public eye for so much longer maybe? Or is it perhaps because there's more dirt to be dug in the first place? Or maybe his minions are better at hiding it than hers? Is he overall more "clean"?

I'm not trying to cast doubts either way. I'm still on the fence where both candidates are concerned and I'll support whichever one comes out as the nominee but this is a personal observance of mine (perhaps mistaken) that I feel is a very valid one.

Why is it so much easier for me to find and dig up "dirt" on Clinton than for Obama?

No one cares to address this?




.

[Marcia Drummergal]

"Why is it so much easier for me to find and dig up "dirt" on Clinton than for Obama?"

Simplest answer? Because she has been in the public eye a LOT longer than Obama. I mean, before he became a senator, how many of us not living in Illinois ever heard of him?

Marcia ;)

[paularoid]

"Why is it so much easier for me to find and dig up "dirt" on Clinton than for Obama?"

Simplest answer? Because she has been in the public eye a LOT longer than Obama. I mean, before he became a senator, how many of us not living in Illinois ever heard of him?

Marcia ;)
Well that -is- one of the options that I put forth and it's easily true. I'm going to withold all my voting options for a while though and see if either one of them has a meltdown of any kind here in the future. As it stands now I believe that Obama has the upper hand when you count everything up though I could well be mistaken.

On a slightly different tangent, I just found out that former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro is one of Clinton's head honchos and that can't be anything but good for Clinton. For those that are unaware or not old enough to remember, Ferraro was one of the first women to undergo election scrutiny quite a while ago now. I remember it well how much mud got slung in her direction.

On still another tangent, I wonder how Shirley Chisholm would to this time where she's both black AND a woman..... She was before too I realize but the political climate has changed and obviously become more accepting of such things. I am correct aren't I that she ran for pres quite a number of years ago? I can't remember for sure because it's been so long ago and I was but a carefree adolescent at the time. YEP! Here it is at Shirley Chisholm biography (http://www.essortment.com/all/shirleychisholm_ruol.htm) (beware of pop-ups).
On January 25, 1972, Chisholm announced her candidacy for president. She stood before the cameras and in the beginning of her speech she said,

"I stand before you today as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud. I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that. I am not the candidate of any political bosses or special interests. I am the candidate of the people."
I wonder if she'd do any better today than she did then?

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Evening all...

About the change in color of the photographs I would say it is possible that it was intentional.... BUT... then again I would say it's equally possible that it's not... Often, and don't ask me why when a photo is tranported and used there does seem to be some mild to moderate changes in the shading and color... An example to this would be to look at the book cover for Janis's book... The artwork has a much redder blush or tint then the original photo... I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and say that this is possible on Hillary's website... After all it even happens here from time to time....

http://www.janisian.com/press-photos.html

John, Janis, incidently I like the selection for the cover art...

Best

R. from Pa

[Oak Kitten]

Paul,

Marcia is exactly right. Of course there is a lot more "dirt" on Hillary because she has been in the public eye for a much longer period of time. How much of that "dirt" has any basis in reality is a another issue.

When Geraldine Ferraro ran as VP, her opponents went after her husband on ethics issues. I forget the precise details, it involved his business dealings.

I actually met Shirley Chisholm when I was in junior high school, when she ran for President. I don't really have any recollection of how she was treated by the press during the campaign. I doubt that she got much attention at all.

My nominee for a black female Presidential candidate would be Gwen Ifill, the anchor on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer. But then again, I respect and admire her too much to actually want to see her put herself through that debasing process. To run as a candidate would require the type of behavior that is completely antithetical to her present job as one of the few REAL journalists left on television. She is better off where she is.

Here is the real conundrum with this election. Obama has won very few of the major states needed to win a general election. I think the only big state he has won is Illinois. Most of the caucus states in which he has prevailed to date are historically "red" states, and will most likely remain as red states in the general election, despite the increased democratic turnout his candidacy has purportedly engendered. Or they are very small states with few electoral votes. Remember, in the general election, it is "winner take all." Electoral votes are not allocated proportionally. If Hillary prevails in Pennsylvania, Obama is going to have a much harder time convincing the party that he should be at the top of the ticket. If he can't win in the big states, he can't win.

What bugs me about Obama's youth vote, especially the female portion of the youth vote, is that they seem to think that feminist issues are "yesterday's news." As Cokie Roberts (ABC news correspondent, and daughter of a former Louisiana Senator) has pointed out, "they feel that way because they have not yet had the major life experiences of motherhood and working for a living." Nothing like having the 2X4 of reality whack you upside the head to change your point of view. Right now they are all thinking "it is not a problem for me personally, therefore it is not a problem." Not really much that can be done about that, I suppose. They are just going to have to learn those lessons the hard way, like the rest of us.

Oak

[Judy]

Just as a side note: Shirley Chisholm has said that through her career, she has encountered more discrimination as a woman than as an African American.

I agree with Marcia and Oak, regarding Clinton's being in the public eye much longer. I also see that Obama has dust on his feet and believe he may be vulnerable to the Republican machine during a general election. Just right off the top he has the land deal with Rezko (which has ties to a British-Iraqi (just say the word "Iraqi" and you have a suspected "evil-doer."); he has two plaigerism accusations pointed at him; he has had questionable stock trades with two people who have supported him financially (as noted, he lost money in the deal, but then so did Whitewater); he's taken money from Republicans who were up to their knees in the swift boat campaign against Kerry; there is mention of underground video of him doing coke when he was 19 or so (yea, sure, so did Bushie, but hot-damn! he was repentant so all was forgiven); and of course, his glaring absent position of Chair of European affairs and his equally glaring absence at the Afghanistan Security Hearings.

I promise, I am not beating up on Obama...the question was a call for "dirt"...and when I think of that I think of what can be spun against him in order to scare people away from him.

[Wildflower Fever]

I seriously feel we are all more enlightened when we have this open discourse, and I really appreciate and value the opinons of all my fellow liberals on these issues. Yet, I really believe Obama is going to get the nomination, and I hope we can all stand with him if/when he does as this election is still the most important for all of us in many decades. If he does, as is the same for Hillary, he/she is going to need the full breadth of our support. I guess my biggest beef with Hillary was the statement that she and John McCain are prepared to defend this country in times of peril, and all Barack has is a speech. This is not a DNC talking point for me, I really believe this remark was ridiculously damaging. If Obama gets the nod, she may have given McCain the extra ammo he didn't need, that the other biggest democratic candidate accidentally endorsed McCain on an issue that is already his greatest strength. How does this help the party? Still, as I've stated before, if Hillary gets the nod she has my full support and I will still volunteer in getting out the vote in November. I only hope Obama would feel the same because the base really needs the other candidates endorsement in these divisive times for the party.

[paularoid]

I seriously feel we are all more enlightened when we have this open discourse, and I really appreciate and value the opinons of all my fellow liberals on these issues. Yet, I really believe Obama is going to get the nomination, and I hope we can all stand with him if/when he does as this election is still the most important for all of us in many decades. If he does, as is the same for Hillary, he/she is going to need the full breadth of our support. I guess my biggest beef with Hillary was the statement that she and John McCain are prepared to defend this country in times of peril, and all Barack has is a speech. This is not a DNC talking point for me, I really believe this remark was ridiculously damaging. If Obama gets the nod, she may have given McCain the extra ammo he didn't need, that the other biggest democratic candidate accidentally endorsed McCain on an issue that is already his greatest strength. How does this help the party? Still, as I've stated before, if Hillary gets the nod she has my full support and I will still volunteer in getting out the vote in November. I only hope Obama would feel the same because the base really needs the other candidates endorsement in these divisive times for the party.


We are of like minds you and I.




.

[Wildflower Fever]

We are of like minds you and I..

Good. I'll tell you my only concern has been the fact that Hillary has taken most of the "big" states, but this concern is minimal. I believe that if Obama wins, he'll still get all the "blue" states that Kerry won, and only needs one red state to win the presidency. Knowing he has more independent crossover appeal, I think he could win at least one red state. Of course it may take more than one as we only needed Ohio in '04 and it's a populous state, and we all know what happens there come election time.:rolleyes: We shall see, I'll just be so happy to see Barack or Hillary in the White House, and not John "Bush" McCain

[Bill_L]

I much prefer Hillary over Obama - he just doesn't seem "ready for prime time". Maybe in four or eight years. He sounds like an evangelical preacher promising "change" if we follow him in place of "salvation". Don't think he's telling us much about the "how" of his plans.

His outstanding speech abilities mask the witholding of the facts of his plans. He seems to be inspiring listeners to be "true believers". (I think it was Eric Hoffer that originated that phrase.) CNN did an interesting segment several days ago about how he has acheived the success he has had. You can view the segment at http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/09/nr.obama.magic.cnn?iref=videosearch . The segment was based on the Rolling Stone article in the current issue - Obama is on the cover. The article can be seen at http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/19106326 . Sounds too much to me like recruiting for the Pied Piper.

I will vote for Obama over McClain but don't believe he can do as well as Hillary. Too paraphrase a Vice Presidential candidate - I don't know Hillary Clinton but Obama is no Hillary Clinton.

Hillary's remark about her and McClain being ready was not an example of aiding the enemy. No one will claim McClain isn't ready - she just acknowledged it which kept McClain from making a statement about it himself. She upstaged McClain and kept anyone from claiming she either didn't know he was ready or didn't want to admit it. She kept him from a talking point.