Could people really be deluding themselves into thinking that Obama is about "hope" and "change"? The evidence shows Obama is really just an old-style Chicago Pol, who shoved aside other African American candidates on his way up the political ladder, using vote suppression

What hogwash. The candidate stepped aside and asked Obama to run, then when she lost her bid for the race she chose, she wanted Obama to move off the ballot and let her have her run for re-election. Obama declined to do so. When she protested and brought signed petition, Obama challenged the signatures and prevailed. Nothing was underhanded or pushing others there was no voter suppression it was all perfectly legal.

Obama has been caught lying about his relationship; it's disingenuous in the extreme to call Rezko "this individual" during the debate, and say he billed 5 hours of work on a Rezko project.

Obama answered the question Blitzer asked which was about what work he had done with Rezko. Was Obama foolish to have even engaged in the real estate transaction? You bet. However, unlike Hillary, Obama admitted it was an error in judgment.

Hillary however sent thousands of Americans to die and tens of thousands more are maimed without limbs or suffering from traumatic brain injury where 20 something year old adults have to learn how to eat and walk all over again.

Hillary has yet to admit her gross error in judgment about taking this country to war which is of far greater magnitude than Obama's real estate transaction with Rezko.

Referring to Rezko as 'this individual' is no more disengenous than Hillary claiming it was a vast right wing conspiracy when asked about Lewinsky.

In fact, it sounds downright inocuous in comparison.

Posted at January 23, 2008 9:30 PM in response to Didn’t Obama Watch the Firm?

Bill Clinton approved the Telecom Act that allowed the consolidation of the media conglomeration that attacks Democrates. Just another one of those 'good' GOP ideas he passed into law, like NAFTA and welfare reform and retention of the mandatory drug sentencing laws.

Posted at January 23, 2008 9:20 PM in response to Didn’t Obama Watch the Firm?

Hillary has said a number of times, that Bush mismanaged the war, not that the war itself was a mistake. She takes exception to how the war was executed.

The time has come for the administration to stop serving up platitudes and present a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she said. "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it.

"Instead, I think we need a plan for winning and concluding this war, and the president can begin by taking responsibilities for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of this war."

Posted at January 23, 2008 9:15 PM in response to Didn’t Obama Watch the Firm?

Hillary Clinton shouldn't have to "apologize" for a vote given in good conscience

That is the whole point of having a good conscience, when you realize you have made an error in judgment you apologize for it. So yes, she should apologize, as has Edwards. Edwards is right. Hillary does not apologize because she has not learned from her mistake. Thus her conscience is clear, but not good.

. If you read her floor speech on why she was going to cast her vote yea, I think she explains very well what her reasoning was for that vote.

Her reasoning was incredibly flawed. Her speech is nothing but a disclaimer to tell us what is not casting her vote for, yet by casting the vote she is affirming and putting into action all that she disclaims. It was a classic example of say one thing and do another.

Why should Clinton "apologize" for being fooled by Bush?

Because only she is accountable for her actions and votes. She can not pass the buck to Bush for her error in judgment. A majority of the congressional democrats were able to reason that Bush had not made the case for war, as was obama despite not being a Senator at the time. Hillary needs to account for her flawed judgment and saying that she was fooled does not do so. Hillary is not taking responsibility for the power that was vested in her by the people of NY when they elected her. It is unacceptable for her to say that she was fooled by Bush when both the chair of the intelligence committee and armed services committee explicitly told her to vote against the war. Hillary Clinton especially needs to apologize because she sent our sons and daughters to die in Iraq without even reading the NIE report while casting her vote with conviction. What type of conviction does she have to act in such a negligent manner...calluous?  Hillary's entire floor speech makes a mockery of the trust the citizens of this country trusted her when she fails to apologize for that vote. That floor speech does nothing but underscore how incredibly terrible her judgment is.

Given that Bush is an incompetent fool, anyone who acknowledges they were fooled by him is an even bigger fool. As they are the fools fool.

Posted at January 23, 2008 8:44 PM in response to Didn’t Obama Watch the Firm?

 Nice deflection, but the point is that Obama started it, and Clinton finished it.

Obama defended himself against Hillary's assertions that he was prasing Reagans policy by drawing a clear contrast to what work he was doing at the time and what work Hillary was doing. That was not an attack to say that Hillary was a corporate lawyer on the board of WalMart nor is it a smear. To assert that someone is the lawyer for a slumlord for the inner city of Chicago is a smear. Hillary started the fight.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that one candidate can act with impunity.

Hillary and Bill thought are acting with impunity as the press is not holding either of them accountable for the blatant lies, distortions and misrepresentations of Obama's records that they willfully engage in as did Hillary when she started the fight at this debate by intentionally misrepresenting Obama's views on republicans having ideas.

Posted at January 23, 2008 8:30 PM in response to Didn’t Obama Watch the Firm?

 The successful ones also have the ability to deal with negative campaigning, and I haven't see that from Obama yet.

What is your reference criteria for success, winning the election? Can you name a great President who dealt with negative campaigning of the nature we have today? It seems to me that we do not need successful politicians what we need are great leaders  and those talents are not judged by the ability to handle negative campaigns but rather on the ability to lead and have a vision for the country.

A successful politican is typically one who is corrupt and owned by special interests groups and who knows how to not only lie well but who basically has no record of accomplishment to state on and so they engage in negative campaigning to shift the focus away from themselves and onto their opponent.  Individuals like that do not make great Presidents nor are they typically decent human beings who believe in honesty and integrity above and beyond their own personal ambitions.

Posted at January 23, 2008 8:21 PM in response to Didn’t Obama Watch the Firm?

. I agree with you that the feel one gets from Obama is that he is smarter and certainly more modern. That does not make him anything beyond just another politician. It makes him a pretty good one and I think anyone would acknowledge that

Obama is a masterful politician due to a combination of intellect, judgment and leadership. That is what makes him brilliant and has catapaulted him onto the national scene. Although, it is not acknowledged in the media, Obama is running toe to toe with politicians who have been on the national scene for 15 years and he had to start from scratch. That makes him far more than just another politician. Biden, Dodd nor Kucinich with all their experience could accomplish what Obama has politically in 3 short years on the national scene. To say that he is a pretty good politician is a gross understatement.

. She tends to emphasize the female vote and older, more traditional Democrats. He tends to emphasize African-American voters (as he's clearly been doing especially in SC), the young and independent white, well educated voters looking for something different.

This is a misrepresentation of Obama's campaign. He did not emphasize African American voters in his campaign. In fact, Hillary has had a double digit lead over him in terms of the black vote since the beginning of the campaign, until her and Bill decided to introduce a biased racial tone into the campaign with the remarks of Sheheen, a fired HRC campaign supporter and Bill Clinton. Hillary at the same time has consistently introduced the gender card.

They are reduced, as any similar products are, to emphasizing small differences in order to create contrast in the minds of voters (consumers)in hopes of getting them to choose/buy their candidate (product)on election day

What we are witnessing is two very different styles of leadership and two very different visions for the direction of this country. Hillary believes is wielding power and engaging our military might globally to resolve problems while caving to corporate interests when it comes to the economy. Obama believe in working with dissent and opposing views to find solutions to the nations problems while engaging in robust diplomacy as the primary focus of our foreign policy to restore our stature in the global community. These are the primary character contrast we need to choose between. We have a politician with a track record of good judgment who gets it right the first time and a politician who claims that she is ready to lead on the first day despite having a track record of poor judgment that does not learn from  mistakes with all the experience she has acrued she repeats her errors of judgment as the K-L bill attests to as well as the 'mandatory' requirement in her national healthcare proposal.

. They are decidedly not proposing to change the balance of power in Washington to put the average American back in charge.Neither of them speaks with any passion or specificity about the genuine crises we face in the nation after two terms of the most corrupt and incompetent administration in American history

I am uncertain how you have acquired this perception but it is false. Obama speaks consistently about restoring our govenrment to the people and taking it out of the entrenched corporate interests in DC. His vision for the country encompasses the awareness that we need a grass roots movement in order to restore our democracy to the citizens. He tells the electorate that people who love their country can in the face of incredible odds, take back their country. No campaign is going to be able to give specifics about the details of how they will do anything as the circumstances and situations that will come about in their administration is unpredictable. What the candidates do is tell us their vision for what the direction they would like to see the nation go and what policies they are proposing to do that. A list of those policies as you know are on Obama's website.

 Neither of them discuss the importance of putting an immediate end to the police state tactics implemented these past 7 years regarding spying on citizens, torture, habeus corpus, etc. Neither of them discuss evem taking a look at restoring some responsibility to our financial and banking system

Not so. As a constitutional scholar who taught con law at the U of chicago, Obama has spoken out against torture, habeus corpus and as a state legislature he fought to ensure that detainees had all confessions taped. Obama has stated he will restore habeus corpus and uphold the Geneva Convention. Obama as a rookie senator worked to ensure that the language in the Patriot Act did not strip us of our civil rights just as warrantless wiretapping. Obama has also spoken about the need for greater banking and mortgage lending regulations so that banks can't engage in predatory lending practices or charge consumers unlimited credit fees. Obama did voted against the bankruptcy bill for that very reason, whereas Hillary voted for it.

Posted at January 23, 2008 8:13 PM in response to Didn’t Obama Watch the Firm?

^ ^

Both hands raised!

Posted at January 15, 2008 3:48 PM in response to Playing With Fire: Smearing Obama Among Jews

Obama had better show he can fend it off during the primaries before the Republicans have at him.

I just want to know when the media and the columnists are going to take it to Hillary like the GOP will if she is the nominee. Let's put Hillary under some heat as well if that is what this exercise is about. Why should we wait and see what else is out there to clobber her with lets start ambushing her now and denigrating her with the politics of personal destruction based on all the baggage she carries.

It is despicable for anyone to blame a parishoner for the actions of the church.  Faith is a big tent just like the democratic party is supposed to be. Obama's church nor his minister are running for any government agency or Presidency.

Obama has stated his views and we need to respect them.

Otherwise we need to start haranging all the candidates for what their churches do.

Posted at January 15, 2008 3:35 PM in response to Dirt

UM, don't look now, but you are the only one flooding this forum like a troll with innumerable posts.

Obviously you need your meds as the way you post is like youhave an OCD.

Posted at January 14, 2008 8:30 AM in response to Dead Marine -- killed by a fellow Marine