When he said he would “work accross the isle” that meant I will agree with republicans. We have heard all of his type of campaign retoric before, and we knew what he meant. That is why we oppose him. As president he will given in to republicans all the time to prove this “work accross the isle” and democrats in congress will follow as if he is the pied piper. Leading us all to another Bush term.

And I hope you are not saying that just because people dislike a Black candidate that they are prima facie racist. Give me Mayor Nutter or Cory Booker and I would be on board in a minute.

I am sick and tired of hearing Hillary supporters being called racists just because they support her. Worse yet, for the Obama campaign to suggest that the Clintons are racist is what turned me against Obama. Anyone who knows anything knows that was absolutely unforgiveable. That couple has been working for civil rights since they were VERY young and when it was not the popular stance to take. Shame on the Obama campaign!!!

The True Successors to the, “Some of My Best Friends are Negroes!” set. Strongly reminiscent of the Environmentalists of Convenience who premeate Florida politics.

(Nothing says Hypocrisy quite like spending 35 years as a Peabody Coal manager, then retiring to Florida to piss and moan about the demise of the Everglades…a place where you’d never be caught dead).

The cartoon made me think of magic. It is easier to perform magic when you have raw material and the public does not know what is going on. Magic is slide of hand and miss direction that fools the public into thinking and believing what the magician wants them to. As people become more aware that who they were influenced by the magician to believing Obama is, is not who he really is, then the same trick will be harder to pull off. And a new trick will be harder to sell which is why I do not feel Obama can win.

Early in the campaign, when reality of actually having the power of the presidency is like a game, playing it like a game without real life consequences can be fun. Just like magic can be fun. Magic is what Plouffe created with the Obama campaign. Since we knew very little about Obama, Plouffe could create any fantasy he wanted and we the people knowing very little about Obama could believe in the fantasy or even create our own fantasy about who Obama is and what he could do.

Now as we learn more about Obama and the magic, it will be harder to create the illusions. As we get closer to reality, we need to put away our need for fantasy and look for reality. That means we need a leader who is real and we can count on. A leader we know a great deal about and a leader who knows about the reality of government, the economy, foreign governments, world economics, the Democrats and Republicans together, and what it takes to create change. We do not need another unknown inexperienced person like what Bush was when he took office. With Hillary we have all that we need to believe in, without magical thinking.

Even Hillary though can not do it alone. We the people need to get real and realize that there is no quick fix to problems that have been ignored for years if not decades. We need to get behind Hillary, look truth in the face and make changes in our own behavior, our involvement with our government, demand change in the Democratic Party and from our government. We need to welcome previous Obama supporters back into the Hillary camp. And we need to do what Americans have always been able to do which is to put our thinking caps and get to work solving our problems and the world problems.

Rich

This is why issues don’t matter to them. They don’t care if it really isn’t universal health care (they already have there’s) and don’t get alarmed at real sexism or the calling someone a racist who has devoted his life to racial equality.

Obama is just a fashion statement.

The real genius of Plouffe, Axelrod, and the rest of his handlers is that they understood who to market Obama like he was Odwalla juice or organic fruits or the latest must-drink bottled water.

They, of course, will do that anyway, if lots of Hillary Dems vote against him, but he will then be losing by himself and she will be in a stronger position if she decides to run again.

Besides which, i don’t want her to humiliate herself by being his VP. I hope everyone I admire says no to him. I hope Webb starts a trend.

1. Choosing Clinton would belie Obama’s message of change. Whether you admire her or not, you have to acknowledge that Clinton’s an old-style, legacy Democrat. Obama’s candidacy is premised on a break with the past.

Who’s past? his past? Like getting your opponents kicked off the ballot instead of winning by arguing the merits of his position over theirs?

2. Choosing Clinton would belie Obama’s repudiation of the old way of doing politics. Clinton and her surrogates are tough campaigners who have gone hard after Obama (see below) trying to draw him into the fight. And on those occasions where he and his team have responded in kind, Team Clinton has smirkingly asked whatever happened to the politics of hope?

Tho old way of politics? Like pointing out that your programs and plans are better than your opponents.

3. Bill Clinton. He’s a brilliant man and an amazing politician, but he’s shown an inability to stay on message and keep his foot out of his mouth as he campaigns for his wife. Obama already has Rev. Jeremiah Wright to worry about — he doesn’t need another loose cannon out there ready to fire.

How well would Obama do if he were covered by a hostile print and broadcast media ready to pounce in every mis-statement and turn it into something it wasn’t?

4. She’s polarizing. For all that she’s shown how popular she can be with certain groups of primary voters, Hillary Clinton also remains a controversial and unpopular figure. Here are her “unfavorable” ratings among all voters in a set of recent national polls, with Obama’s unfavorability ratings in parenthesis: 37 (30) ; 45 (37) 46 (38) 49 (40) 54 (39) 53
(37).

See my comments above about the media. After 16 years of negative reporting and or outright lies about the Clintons they have the nerve to report that HRC has high negatives with a straight face. Were Obama under the same scrutiny as the Clintons, where would his negatives be?

5. She’ll be the star of anti-Obama commercials: “It’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” she said on March 6. “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”

For putting into words what everybody but the cultists know?

6. She’s gone beyond the pale in attacking Obama: “I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002,” she said on March 4. Clinton delivered this insulting, dismissive, destructive critique several times, and it’s a bell she can’t unring.

You’re repeating yourself.
A better example of going beyond the pale attacking your opponent would be statements like,”I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,”

7. She’s toting unpacked baggage. Clinton likes to claim that she’s been thoroughly vetted and withstood all the Republican attacks of the 1990s and now any bad news about her is simply old news. It’s not so. Obama hasn’t called her on this claim because he’s trying to preserve the image that he’s above the politics of scandal. And the Republican operatives are lying in the weeds, boosting Clinton’s candidacy and licking their chops, waiting to pounce.

You’re right about one thing in this point, Obama trying to preserve his image. How’s that working out inre FISA, Iraq and Campaign Finance?

Not only are there all the “–gate” scandals from her husband’s administration that were set aside rather than fully resolved in the public’s mind (travel, file, cattle and so on), but the issue of the pardons Bill Clinton granted on his way out of the door and the mysterious funding sources from the Clinton Presidential Library are still out there.

You mean all those scandals Ken Starr spent years and millions trying to uncover only to come up with a stain?

8. Picking a real teammate is better than picking a political counterweight. Bill Clinton of Arkansas himself surprised the pundits in 1992 when he chose as his No. 2 another young moderate Democrat from the mid-South — Al Gore of Tennessee — and the two ran a vigorous, consistent campaign. Obama would do better to pick someone of his generation who shares his general outlook and who can speak passionately and convincingly to voters about why they should support Obama.

A consummate liar?

A consumate liar?