Obama Diplomacy?

Right.

Meanwhile, in other news. Presidential candidate John McCain advised Americans concerned about affording health care to "Marry a rich person."

I think Obama is an amazing man and has the potential to do great things.

I also sense he's a chilly man and a bit remote, more intellectual than instinctual. In my opinion, that's why he hasn't connected more to blue-collar Dems.

Some people see him as being in the mold of JFK; I see him more as Woodrow Wilson or Jimmy Carter.

I think you might be extrapolating a bit much here Joe.
Obama not being solicitous enough for the Edwards couple doesn't lead to Obama not connecting to working class voters.

Why does Edwards matter? This is a guy who has ran in 4 election and lost 3. He served ONE term in elected office in which he spent most of his campaign apologizing for. This is a guy who was on the ticket with Kerry, and couldn't win his own state, couldn't win his own county, and couldn't win his own precinct. Who cares about John Edwards?

It could well be that one of the reasons Obama is able to bring two sides together is that he doesn't oversell his own position. And he has not had a lengthy personal relationship with John Edwards, as Hillary has.

But this does seem to have been an opportunity lost. Interestingly, he is in effect being criticized for not sucking up to the special interest, John Edwards. Hillary may well have been sincere, or she may have been obsequious.

The rest of Heilmann's article well worth reading as well.

Joe, there's a big difference between offering someone whatever they want to hear (which we know the Clinton's are willing to do) and then completely rejecting them once he or she (or an entire state) goes against them (which we know the Clinton's are willing to do), and not backing down in regard to your own political or personal beliefs, regardless of the outcome, but still respecting the person afterwards (which has been more or less the Obama mode).

Who is John Heilmann and what about his so called Diplomacy? If the Clinton's treated John Edwards so good then why hasn't he jumped on their band wagon? Hillary will take anything she can get at this point. Can you guys see that Americans are tired of Bush's and Clintons... we need something new so to this voter. I don't care at this point what you say.. I'm voting for Mr. OBAMA and if he isn't there.... I will stay home and endure another 4 yrs of Bush's boy McCain.... have a nice week..

I heard a commentary the other day about how populist Clinton's message had become over the past several months in contrast to Obama's. The speculation was that her consistent message (and history) of helping working people was what was helping her resonate with many voters. When John Edwards left the campaign he made strong statements about wanting the others to take up his message.

As someone mentioned above, I find Obama aloof. Watch his expressions. I thought watching him in debates, he came across as on the edge of supercilious. Interesting enough that is also a criticism of Bob Casey and I thought it interesting that Casey endorsed him. Many have speculated that this endorsement will be a big help to Obama in PA. The main reason Casey was elected was that he wasn't Santorum. The real Republican base doesn't like his position on abortion; the Democrats find him too conservative. He voted properly on FISA the first time, but at the final vote he voted for the bad bill. He has his anti-war stance going for him, but he won't be easily re-elected.

I'm sorry Joe.

Perhaps you can tell us how many other politicians came across to some other politicians badly in private. Sometimes when big egos meet, those you think would be naturally aligned are not.

Why not read ANY biography of say FDR?

He and Huey Long loathed each other with the heat of a 1,000 fiery suns. (Hell, FDR and Eleanor didn't exactly like each other for that matter)

Somehow the distant patrician still became the Greatest President since Lincoln.

That doesn't mean, of course, Obama will come near that league, but the number of politicians who don't get along in private are legion, and their results still substantial.

I think the reason John Edwards delayed his endorsement is that once he did so he would then fall into political obscurity. So he delayed it, knowing the media would keep asking, "When will John Edwards endorse?" thereby keeping him relevant in this primary. The answer is, Who Cares? I agree with WilliamG. The man was a 1 term, undistinguished senator who never had a chance at the nomination or the presidency. And if it's true he delayed his endorsement because Barack didn't suck up to him and Hillary did, it shows how shallow and irrelevant he is.

The speculation was that her consistent message (and history) of helping working people was what was helping her resonate with many voters.

As a former Union president, I gotta call major BS on this. What, specifically, can you cite in support?

And please explain her support of the Bankruptcy Bill when you do so.

This post makes Edwards look bad, not Obama. I'll believe this when I hear it from identified sources, and when it is bolstered by more facts in terms of what was asked, promised, not promised among these parties.

In other words, Hillary was more willing to suck up and humor the Edwards' ego then Obama. And Obama wasn't willing to say one thing in public and another in private (that his Healthcare plan was universal)

Who cares what Hillary tells people in private? She'll she sure as hell doesn't, and will go back on any promises as soon as doing so becomes expedient.

Some people see him as being in the mold of JFK; I see him more as Woodrow Wilson or Jimmy Carter.

Woodrow Wilson probably wouldn't like that comparison, he was a huge racist who brought segregation to the military and was literally a member of the KKK.

Why do we even care about Edwards. He is been running for president from the day he and kerry lost in 2004. You can't change your policy position(Health Care Mandate) for an endorsement. Even Nadar spoke with Obama before he decided to run for president himself(Nadar endorsed Edwards before). Does it mean he don't know how to close the deal? Edwards is a phony! Senator Edwards voted for Iraq war, china trade, Bankruptcy bill etc. When you ask the presidential candidate Edwards then he will say all the votes were mistake. He talks about poverty but spends $400 for Haircut. I don't think his endorsement matters that much.

On the one hand, Obama supporters are a mindless cult who revere him as they would Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, Obama just can't connect.

Odd.

Joe - I think there is a flaw here though. You're extrapolating his inability to woo the Edwards duo as poor diplomacy, but ultimately, the bones of contention were his personally held positions.

It would be eminently political to say "Yes, John, I do actually prefer your health care plan, but it's too late for me to switch publicly. Let's get me elected, then do your version." Of course, he didn't.

Is this a trial balloon for an Al Gore-robot-cold-intellectual meme?

Source: a single anonymous source who was granted anonymity for no good reason.

Please.

When are you guys going to come to your senses and realize that when you grant anonymity to anyone for anything you are giving them free license to say whatever they want without consequence? And that anyone with an agenda can use that to turn personal gossip into news?

I heard from someone close to all three camps that Clinton gave Edwards a hummer. True story.

Finally, intelligent blog responses from visitors without significant rants from obsessive wackos.

Uniquely, the thinking exhibited in the readers' comment quality far exceeds that of the blogger. Which creates a telling contrast between the media hell-bent on making serious decision issues "entertaining" and those of us (the public)who will be forced to live the consequences of being entertained rather than informed.

There is no discernment or logic in the bloggers premise for purely common sense reasons - it's all unsupported gossip. By definition, gossip is misinformation with no owner and totally unreliable.

Obama is a "possible", but it is certain that the author of this blog is devoid of professional journalistic ethics and is financially or emotionally opinionated.

However, that sad fact is more than offset by reading the comments - which were thoughtful and well stated.

Southern Bell's Woodrow Wilson comparison is very apt. Of course he was horribly racist, but the same is true of most American presidents. FDR was a terrible President for non-whites. And the vast majority of American Presidents have been very sexist. But it is still useful and interesting to compare Obama and Clinton to past Presidents, because even though Clinton and Obama don't share their prejudices they do share other qualities with many past Presidents.

About the Edwards, they just agree more with Clinton than Obama on health care policy. And it was foolish for Obama to think he could convince someone as clever and knowledgeable as Elizabeth Edwards that a mandate isn't needed for universal health care (She would be a great President). It's not about playing politics and pretending to agree with the Edwards; it's about being straightforward. It was reasonable for Obama to argue about health care policy with the Edwards (if he thinks he's right he definitely shouldn't just pretend to agree with them to get their endorsement), but saying that his policy is universal is just a different kind of political spinning. And it's not smart to try to spin Elizabeth Edwards.

According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps,

Apparently I'm not the only one smelling a rat.

Anything to keep the ratings up I suppose.

Is this what your intelligence sources are telling you Joe Klein? Lucky for us you have access to the inside 411 and a John Heilemann bookmark in your browser. Did he say "hut, hut" before you guys ran this play?

Seasons change and so does the corporate message.

Paul Dirks has it exactly right.

a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps

... has a distinct smell of hearsay about it.

But even if we take this source as reliable, the meat of the story this source tells is that Clinton kissed up to Edwards seeking his endorsement, and Obama didn't, and the final reason John didn't endorse Hillary is because Elizabeth "hates her guts".

There's nothing "diplomatic" about mendaciously kissing butt; and there's something refreshingly honest about someone who, like Obama, refuses to kiss butt.

My guess is that the only thing standing between John Edwards and Edwards's endorsement of Obama is Edwards's (and perhaps Elizabeth's) ego.

It has nothing to do with Obama's diplomatic skills or his ability to connect with working class voters -- the latter of which he has proven quite capable of doing, in the 30 contests he has won so far.

Joe, I think you're offbase here. I believe that by sticking to his guns Obama reinforced the idea of working with both sides. Clinton and Edwards had a plan that is farther left than Obama's. Obama wants to leave some modicum of choice in the whole affair to people, rather than making a government mandate. That is more likely appealing to the middle and the right, which is what he's said all along that he can and wants to do.

And it's evidence that he will put what he considers good ideas ahead of what could have been good politics--namely, pandering for the support of a former Presidential contender.

Seems like neither a mistake nor a problem to me.

And to follow-up, if Clinton was so much more effective, where's the public endorsement? This was all weeks (months?) ago.

As an original Edwards supporter, I am glad that Edwards has spoken to both candidates. But I have to wonder: Why is it that people always want to give this guy a pass when it comes to any negative press? He has been hypocritical on where he stands regarding Wright, the War in Iraq, and accepting money from the "big" companies:

He stated in his "race speech" that he had heard Wrights' hateful comments; yet on "The View" he stated he had not heard them;

He has opposed the War in Iraq, yet Obama helped to re-elect Joe Lieberman back to the Senate (and we all know how Joe feels about the war);

He states he doesn't take big money (oh yes he does!), but during one debate he said, "Both of our hands are dirty Hillary";

Additionally, he has changed his position on healthcare to include all - hmmmm, whereas before he was just requiring parents to cover children. He stated if you have your own health care, you can keep it. Isn't that what Senator Clinton has been promoting all along?

Obama also contacted Governor Rendell of PA inquiring about PA support in the fall, because "you know I am going to be the nominee."

Tell me: Is this guy that pompous, arrogant, and self-righteous to think he is above the process and assume that he will be the nominee? Apparently he doesn't think he needs the support of the Edwards - but again, his presumption that he will be the nomineee would dictate that he doesn't need it.

I guess so.

I realize it is very likely Obama will be the Dem nominee and of course I would vote/work for his campaign.

But pretending he doesn't have flaws, that he is without his own Achilles Heel, is counter-productive.

He is wonderful when he gives a speech but not so good in town-hall meetings. He does appear aloof and this will contrast badly with McCain's image (which McCain has down pat) as a folksy, down-to-earth regular guy.

I think some people want to believe it's racism that keeps conservative Dems from embracing Obama fully but that's not fair to those voters and ignores the real question of Obama's own weaknesses when as a candidate.

attaturk,

FDR had Huey Long's support when he needed. It was after the 1932 Democratic Convention that FDR began to distance himself from Long.

@# 3 (Paul)

What? Joe Klein, extrapolate?! Never!

Ok I get that Joe Klein wants to do another Clinton era. Sure enough, it made him rich and famous traveling with that theater.

Where's the source of this information?????

Still keeping secrets???????

Doesn't ring true. Maybe that's signifcant too.

"Doesn't ring true" GaiasChild? Actually this is old news. What is it with you Obama supporters?

Bob Somerby has it right when he says, "When you're a shirt, you're a shirt all the way."

Wow, i'm very impressed two back to back comments from spqr1225 | March 29, 2008 1:04 PM, then Southern Bell | March 29, 2008 1:09 PM.

Very insightful, both of you.

John Heilmann has an interesting account of the efforts by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to woo John Edwards...and guess what?.

However, I believe what most are missing in Joe Klein's post for this blog is the question; "Who will be the better diplomat when talking to other world leaders as the President of the United States".

Very slick Mr Klein, very slick indeed.

"This flies in the face of Obama's public image: the natural politician, whose emotional intelligence is off the charts, whose first instinct is conciliation." - But that public image of Obama isn't supported by much evidence. He has very little experience of actually working with Republicans in government. Clinton is the one who successfully works with Republicans who used to hate her and voted for her husband's impeachment.

This article isn't based on identified sources, so I understand people's skepticism about its detailed accounts of three person meetings. But the content of the article is not actually surprising.

who cares what an ambulance chaser who got rich over stealing doctor's money thinks.

I also don't want to leave this great comment behind in the mass either:

On the one hand, Obama supporters are a mindless cult who revere him as they would Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, Obama just can't connect.

Odd.

Posted by SFBear | March 29, 2008 12:14 PM

I could not have said it any better myself. Thank you SFBear!

Would it help if Obama invited you to a BBQ, Joe?

boy Joe -- what gives?

Obama didn't grovel at Edwards' feet and reinvent himself to beg for his endorsement and Hillary did --

Is this really a surprise?

Hillary will always morph more easily than Obama - she has no true fundamental core other than driving personal ambition

This is the Clinton's just showing more of the Primary Colors!

You should know!

To date I've read:

Edwards thinks Obama is a vagina (to put it in polite terms).

Elizabeth Edwards likes Obama and hates Clinton.

Elizabeth Edwards hates Obama and likes Clinton.

John Edwards likes Clinton as a fighter but thinks she's a corporate shill.

John Edwards hates Obama.

John Edwards likes Obama but thinks a black man won't be elected president.

The rumors and innuendo has been flying and lord knows where the truth actually falls down; but I will say this. Richardson was leaning to Obama and the Clintons managed to keep him on the fence a long time with their outreach and keep him on the fence. And now, I can see they've been playing ball with Edwards and falling over themselves because the longer he stays on the fence the more (1) his impact is diluted since his donors have split 2 to 1 for Obama and (2) his endorsement is diluted unless he endorses Clinton who then makes this a huge uspset story.

JMHO

But this says jack about Obama's diplomatic skills IMO. He has been running on his own platform and he hasn't turned into a populist but he has been liberal this whole time. And compared to Clinton, he still is very liberal especially in forigen policy. And given the race speech he just gave; he is incredibly diplomatic at times that count.

Plus: he has been the ones gaining superdelegates. The Clinton's are the defacto vote and staying on the sidelines the safe thing; but he still has been pulling people off of the fence.

So frankly, Mr. Klein, your post reveals a lack of critical thinking IMO and a deep faith in the journalist that is surprising. Maybe he's a friend? Whatever, this has been contradicted by other reports that a grain of salt is required in my mind.

I agree with many of the commenters here--not sure how this "account" says anything about Obama's diplomacy, though it does say he's not willing to pander just to secure an endorsement.

What troubles me is the willingness by which you quote other third person accounts as though they are fact--a repeated problem in the media coverage of these campaigns. My guess is that there was much much more said between Edwards and both candidates, but alas, those words probably didn't neatly fit the dramatic narrative journalists are bending over backwards to write.

I just went on Hillary Clinton's web site. They have John Edwards web site so maybe it tells you he has endorsed Hillary and just hasn't said so.

There is also a petition on her web site for re-vote in FL and MI. Alot of talk on her web.

I just went on Hillary Clinton's web site. They have John Edwards web site so maybe it tells you he has endorsed Hillary and just hasn't said so.

There is also a petition on her web site for re-vote in FL and MI. Alot of talk on her web.

You know what's funny. I read the title of this article on the main time.com page under the Swampland feature and I knew without reading the byline that Joe Klein had written it. Just knew it. It's a typical Klein piece.

Two days ago he was trying to push Obama out of the race by saying the Democrats should just pick Al Gore and essentially ignore the votes. Great idea. Now it's this.

So let me get this straight running the better campaign, as Obama has, doesn't matter and has no real bearing on your performance as president, but how you lobby John Edwards the day after he dropped out of the race does? Get real, Joe.

My advice for you, Joe Klein, since you've admitted to all of us that you don't really know what's going on in Iraq right now (no one does) why don't you spend some more time trying to figure that out for all of us? And while you're at it check the comment section on your Iraq blurbs people here, many of whom I've disagreed with in the past, left some of the most intelligent responses I've ever seen there.

What you're doing here is a waste of your time, Joe. And even you are better than this.

I think the Heilmann's piece is highly subjective. First, take away adjectives like "glib" and "aloof." There is no verification that the health care argument with Elizabeth and John Edwards too place but, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the health care argument did take place. It strikes me as classic Obama. He's going to tell you what he thinks you need to hear instead of what he knows you'd prefer to hear. As many of these comments have noted. Maybe he's just not a suck-up. Clinton is. As I read somewhere recently: "The Clintons are there when they need you."

This would all be interesting, except John Edwards does not matter and what his wife thinks matters even less. Frankly, no one is going to kiss his keester at this point.

Who John and Elizabeth Edwards endorse isn't the real point here. It's the fact that if Obama does get the nomination the press will go after him much harder than they have so far. They will start connecting the dots in a way they haven't before (whether or not it's "fair" to do so".

His unclear statements about what he actually heard Rev Wright saying; his wishywashy stance on healthcare; his lack of a solid record to back up his claim he was a uniter in Illinois statehouse and now in the US Senate; his tax returns showing he didn't give a lot to charity (something David Brooks pointed out last night on the News Hour which means it will be a talking point for the Repugs).

Those above mentioned little things can start to add up if the press decides to imply Obama is not who he represents himself to be. And McCain has an enormous advantage over Obama: the press loves him and he will have a 24/7 network, Fox, making his case for him constantly. MSNBC is definitely tilted toward Obama but in they will also have McCain supporters on there defending him.

So, getting mad at John and Elizabeth or dismissing this account is false isn't what Dems need to be concerned about. Obama has some real weaknesses as a candidate (as anyone would) that can be exploited.

I'm not mad at John and Elizabeth Edwards. I'm sorry but I just think how you wooed John Edwards the day after he dropped out of the race is irrelevant.

I would also have been prefunctory the day after he dropped out. I would figure he would be slightly down and the last thing he would want to hear is me go on and on.

Also, unfortunately, what Klein is failing to mention is that Hillary Clinton always seems involved and like she's listening to every word you say. Experience has shown that this is not always the case. She's often wrong and has no clue what someone (be they a moderator, voter or one of her opponents) just said to her. IMHO she's one of those people who's waiting to talk. They always seem involved in conversations because they can't wait to jump in and give their two cents. This doesn't mean they're going to do what you asked them to do.

Obama is more cerebral. That's just the way he is. So are a lot of good leaders. I don't think this is quite the big deal Joe apparently does and I think he's reading too much into it. I also think John and Elizabeth Edwards will support whoever the Democratic nominee.

Also note that the article didn't include anything on Elizabeth. Her dislike for Hillary is well known. I very much doubt she agrees with John's apparent view that both candidates are somehow equal in terms of their merits. She made clear, long ago, that she prefers just about any other Democrat over Hillary.

"According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign"

What is the definition of a 'Democratic strategist'? The 'Democratic strategist' wasn't in the room but 'gleaned' the knowledge from the 3 camps...sorry not good enough. Based on what I've seen, I think I probably qualify as a 'Democratic strategist'...and I've got some pretty juicy inside stuff too. Drop me a line, I'll tell ya all about it.

Maybe if Scott Ritter had changed his name to Democratic Strategist we wouldn't be in this mess.

You know Southern Bell, I think he has explained the Wright situation sufficently but that is ajudgement call for every voter. I'll simply submit that every voter that can't move beyond this isn't going to move beyond HRC's Bosnia Lie.

Meanwhile: he has had a lot of critical stories written about his record and some flattering pieces about the policy team he's put together for the campaign.

But once the general election is over; there will be a clear ideoglogical divide the country will vote over and the democratic party will have the financial advantage.

So, I have faith that as the presumptive nominee Barack Obama can win come November. And if he falls apart HRC will STILL have a great chance of winning if they keep the democratic coalition together.

McCain has yet to come under fire and that's why we haven't heard talking points against him; but they're there. And IMO he is actually an easier target in many ways than Romney.

Actually, this shows us what a skilled negotiater Barack Obama really is.

Think about it, folks.

John Edwards is a really successful trial lawyer....you don't get to be that way unless you are a really good negotiater.

Clearly Edwards was trying to get more for his endorsement than his endorsement is really worth.

Obama didn't need Edward's endorsement to get 2/3 of his donors or most of his delegates at the Iowa county conventions. Most Edwards supporters have moced on, I think, and are not looking to him how to think.

So Obama correctly did not pander to Edwards, did not let Edwards overplay his hand.

While Hillary showed herself to be desperate and still did not get the endorsement.

The fact that Hillary has gotten nothing for her brown nosing while Obama has picked up most of Edwards' support tells us that Obama is a shrewd neogotiatoer who didn't give up more than he needed to.

So, nice try Heliemann and Klein, but the episode shows the exat opposite to your pedestrian conslusions.

I heard from a guy that Obama drowns kittens for fun.

Discuss amongst yourselves!

Margalis, I believe you are talking about Bill Frist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist_medical_school_experiments_controversy

Must be a very slow day when Joe Klein offers warmed-over gossip, without a legitimate source, and pretends that it deserved deep analysis. No, on second thoughts, it's a typical day of innuendo, old news, and stale Washington gossip. And yes, it's a typical Joe Klein piece, this time with a Democratic Hoekstra for garnish. Damn, there's a another fine mess you've wasted five minutes of my day on.

Joe:

This is idiotic, gossip-magpie, personality-politics garbage.

If you want to talk about Edward's (and Clinton's) workable health insurance plan vs. Obama's unworkable plan, then just do it without the tabloid crap.

Just because we've covered this before doesn't mean you need to bring the subject up under cover of Access Hollywood-style reporting.

RKA - great comment at 3:46. I expect you're right - and I hope you are, because I think he's going to be our next president.

HillBillary will sell her mother to Edwards if it got her the support. Maybe she should look at the reworked version of Oasis song - Don't look back in anger. http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/dont-look-back-in-anger-a-cover-by-the-mac-and-hillary-show/

I see the Obamamanics have arrived.

Tell me guys, has Obama walked on water yet?

Turned any water into wine?

Oh yee of so much faith!

Obama is a snob. And I'd bet my last dollar that once the election business is over, you'll not get to shake his precious hand.

You know:

Why does Obama have to "reprove" himself?? Why is there always another test? Yes another test?

"Reprove" himself...

interesting language. Again and again...because of an interaction with 2 people reported by a 3rd one.

Maybe, just maybe, John Edwards in particular irritates Obama. Maybe Obama heard the one speech about the father and the mill and the...one time too many.

Maybe, just maybe, Obama resented having to charm someone he did not particularly like (like evidently many folk in the Carolinas and from what I have read elsewhere, his former Senate colleagues).

Why does one interaction with one John Edwards mean that Obama needs to "reprove" himself after seeing with your OWN eyes, Joe, Obama's interactions with many, many other people??

...and another thing:

Has anyone done a good series of interviews with those white blue-collar workers in Ohio and PA about what/who they see when they see Obama?

He didn't have problems with white blue-collar workers in Maine. Or in Wisconsin. Or (amazingly, albeit in smaller numbers) here in Georgia??

So what is it about Ohio and PA white blue-collar workers? Do the particularly harsh economic times (and their memories of what "used to be") keep them tied to those memories in ways that keep them from really giving Obama a good hearing?? I lived in Detroit for a while, and I was struck by how people there (those who worked in the factories)talked alot about what "used to be." You don't hear alot of that in a city like Atlanta (too new, I guess). I don't know...I just wonder if accumulated time and disappointment is just too much for one candidate to overcome-through no fault of his own. And since Obama seems not to want to (or know how to) demagogue(sp?)his way through PA and Ohio, I don't know what the connective tissue would be in places like PA and Ohio (and I am being very region/state-specific here). I don't know. Just asking questions...

By the way: I think it is not JUST social class operating here. Obama consistently does OK with AA black working class workers. (You know, just because they are black and working class does not make them any less working class).

So: Now there's a story. White working class women and men in PA and Ohio. Maybe (in the tradition of those wonderful documentaries of the 60s/70s), maybe we can get somebody to explore THEIR stories.

mphillip, another way to look at Obama's support among white working-class voters is that he gained their support when he was massively outspending Clinton on ads and organization in Wisconsin, Georgia, etc. He outspent Clinton 5 to 1 on TV ads in Wisconsin, which is a very big advantage. But you're right, it would be interesting to hear more about the thinking of PA white and non-white working-class voters.

People may be over-thinking this question of Clinton's support among white working-class voters. My guess is that her popularity with this demographic is caused by the fact that, contrary to the MSM's perception, Clinton is a lot more progressive than Obama. Many well-educated, relatively financially comfortable people seem to evaluate how progressive a candidate is chiefly by their foreign policy. As I've said before, I actually don't see much difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy; I find them both to be far to the right of me in this area (His post-2002 quotes on Iraq and his avoidance of the Kyl-Lieberman vote have convinced me that he is not interested in fundamentally changing America's foreign policy from its pre-2000 form). I know that Obama's supporters disagree with me on this point, but I don't think it's that relevant to my argument here.

On health care and economic programs Clinton is to the left of Obama. It's logical that if you are a working-class Democrat those issues will be your main priorities. So maybe her success with these voters isn't because they are afraid of change, or racist, or looking to the past. Maybe they just prefer her policies.

Gossip and innuendo-I would expect more of Joe. While I respect Senator Edwards, and if by a remote chance all this gossip were true, I would hope he would endorse Obama over Clinton. It appears she would say and do anything to get this nomination. Senator Obama has been villanized to kingdom come with all the Clinton attacks, and yet remains bruised but still standing. Please print one of her speeches from Pennsylvania where she says she was against NAFTA, when we all know the opposite is true. Show me a speech whre she says she lied about her trip to Bosnia, rather than mis spoke. Show me her tax returns, the donors list to the Clinton Library, which we are still waiting on. I'm sorry Ohio wasn't aware of the true facts before their primary. I would much rather have a President who will have a vigorous discussion about the issues, rather than a person who stamps their feet, throws any trash they can, and then have the nerve to say "Everybody Is Picking On Me." Get real facts before you print this kind of nonsense! I expected better.

Interesting that any "charge" against HRC is taken as gospel truth but unflattering speculation about Obama is considered unfounded gossip.

The problem with this article is not its source, for all I care, it could be perfectly true. The issue is its grossly illogical reasoning that if you do not sway a single person, it means that your abilities as “natural politician” and your “emotional intelligence” are questionable or even lacking. The only way that I can explain this irrational proposition and distorted reasoning laid forth by Klein and Heilmann, is that they severely underestimate and trivialize Obama supporters. They think of them as nothing more than Obamaniac who envision him as a perfect deity. Hence, Klein and Heilmann reason that as soon as they highlight something slightly unflattering about Obama, that these naïve maniacs will hastily take back their fickle support. So, this leads Klein and Heilmann to make these illogical and grand generalizations whenever an unflattering issue arises regarding Obama because Obamaniacs (and the rest of the population because the conclusion of this article insults everybody’s intelligence) are mindless.

I take back what I said about Heilmann, I just looked at the article that Heilmann wrote. Joe Klein deserves all of the credit for the irrational reasoning.

Obama needs to just take his organization and start a third party - before anyone say this will not work let me say this. The reason a third party has not worked is because the process usually starts with an individual not any stable organization (think Ross Perot) and it will take a lot of leg work outside of any election cycle.

Obama needs to tell Democrats to go ____ themselves, drop out of the race let either the Clintons or McCain (different side of the same coin) make a mess of things then return with his own party next election cycle and say 'see I told you so.'

fedupwithswampland :And please explain her support of the Bankruptcy Bill when you do so

Easy to explain. She stated that she was going to vote against the bill, but her husband had surgery on the day of the vote and she spent the day in New York.

Also, for completeness sake, her husband vetoed another attempt at the bankruptcy bill (H.R. 2415) in December 2000.

The reason people in PA and OH support Hillary Clinton is because they want a return to the '90s. This is fine. I don't mind it. Hillary knows it which is why she always references the '90s when speaking in either one of these states.

What I do mind is the voters of these states not owning up to it. Just admit it, you love the Clintons and you're not open-minded. That's okay. But nothing is going to change your mind. Quit pretending you would even entertain the notion the 90s were not perfect. Quit claiming that you are open-minded and willing to listen to other candidates. You're not and to say so is disengenuous.

We can then move on to IN and NC where they at least are willing to listen, regardless of who they vote for. We always knew some states would be stuck in the past (you can debate if this is a good thing or not) and Ohio and Pennsylvania are clearly those states. I am, however, confident they will vote for a Democrat over a Republican in November. If they love the more left candidate this will be the Democrat. So I'm not worried. But then again I'm not a spineless Democratic superdelegate who refuses to call a race that is clearly over or stand up for my own principles based on the fact that I'm simply "scared" of the entrenched elite, political family of the party, i.e. the Clintons.

Stringer,

You're pulling our proverbial leg right? I mean even the most enthralled Obamabot can make some sense when they type.

I don't know why everyone thinks Hillary kissed up and Obama didn't.

Hillary knows her health care program inside and out....Obama is trying to put Hillary's plan down.

the longer this race goes on, the more Obama shows his true colors and his lies are coming to view as well. He is just a fairy tale. He made up his life story and the facts are not matching up.

do a search for barry soetoro ...aka Barack Obama

BTW, this is a little OT, but I haven't seen this mentioned here (although I haven't been checking so much recently either so apologies if you've seen it). I received an email from Boyd Richie, from the Texas Democratic Party, reminding delegates about the convention that held today. One part in particular was very interesting:

"If you were elected as a delegate or alternate to your County or Senatorial District Convention, make sure to attend tomorrow. You can click here for more information, including a list of convention locations. Thanks to tremendous enthusiasm from grassroots Democrats, I am confident that these Conventions will be an unparalleled success.

Unfortunately, that enthusiasm may sometimes lead people to act irresponsibly. We have heard reports that misinformation is being spread about tomorrow's County and Senate District Conventions, perhaps using the name of the Texas Democratic Party. Some delegates have reported receiving emails saying that conventions have been cancelled. We have also heard unconfirmed reports that someone is placing robo-calls, claiming to be from the Texas Democratic Party, suggesting that county or district conventions have been cancelled.

The Texas Democratic Party has not been informed that any county or district convention has been cancelled or postponed. If you have heard otherwise, please plan on attending your convention as scheduled unless you receive information from your Democratic County Chair or the official Texas Democratic Party website."

Robo-calls saying the convention was canceled? Who could be responsible? Is this the Rethugs trying to help HRC? Or just the Clinton people directly. It certainly would benefit her more if the delegates failed to turn up at the convention, considering that this is how the delegates for the caucus only are selected.

Shouldn't someone at TIME be on this story?

Joe: now that you have got this going when are we going to hear about The good Senator's story about his Kennedy connection so lovingly detailed by Jonathan Alter when Caroline endorsed Obama. It seems that Obama's old man did not come here under the Kennedy Fund for the Airlift from Kenya. After seeing Clinton being reviled for the Bosnia sniper fire story will we see a similar sort of scepticism when it comes to Obama (whose Selma claim also was four years out of date).

It seems that we have three serial exaggerators in this campaign. Not a little bit of flim flam: just lots of it.

I always enjoy a good old "it seems that" story.

Malcolm - not to dispute you at all but the calls didn't have much affect.
"Many Democrats, though, saw great benefits for the party – particularly in the unprecedented numbers of participants."
From the Dallas Morning News

Paul-no: You might want to read the Post where the story is set out in detail. And look at Alter's piece in the Newsweek on the Kennedy endorsement. All three candidates have this need to recall things that fit in with a positive narrative. Fact checking gets in the way.

mphillip,

The media with their obsession with idenitity politics are simply concern trolling about Obama's supposed big problem with "reagan democrats" because they like narratives about black vs white...and they fit the facts to conform to the narrative they believe to be sexy and able to sell papers and drive ratings, regardless of the inherent truth of the narrative.

As I wrote about a bit ago, this concern about obama and reagan democrats is terribly overblown:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/19/221247/294/786/477198

Today, I was happy to see Frank Rich making some similar points in his column...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30rich.html?hp

"The war is certainly a bigger issue in 2008 than race. Yet it remains a persistent Beltway refrain that race will hinder Mr. Obama at every turn, no matter how often reality contradicts the thesis. Whites wouldn’t vote for a black man in states like Iowa and New Hampshire; whites wouldn’t vote for blacks in South Carolina; blacks wouldn’t vote for a black man who wasn’t black enough. The newest incessantly repeated scenario has it that Mr. Obama’s fate now all depends on a stereotypical white blue-collar male voter in the apotheosized rust belt town of Deer Hunter, Pa.

Well, Mr. Obama isn’t going to win every white vote. But two big national polls late last week, both conducted since he addressed the Wright controversy, found scant change in Mr. Obama’s support. In The Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, his white support was slightly up. As the pollster Peter Hart put it, this result was “a myth buster.” The noisy race wars have failed to stop Mr. Obama just as immigration hysteria didn’t defeat Senator McCain, the one candidate in his party who refused to pander to the Lou Dobbs brigades."

everyone comparing obama to JFK needs to remember that camelot was a fantasy.
it's amazing to me that so many typical white liberals are so removed from inter-racial peoples that they don't realize that society forces you to commit to the race that you are visually identified by. he maybe of mixed genetic matter but, sen. obama is a black man.
it is equally amazing to me that given his personal background people are so transfixed by his eloquence and charisma. being able to manipulate your environment is essential to a child from a mixed race heritage that is bounced around the globe between widely divergent people and family members. i thought all of the liberal, democratic supporters of obama were suppose to be intelligent and well educated? i guess sometimes having common sense is just a matter of being common.

Okay I read the Post story and am outraged. It wasn't Kennedy it was Jackie Robinson, Harry Belafonte and Sidney Poitier! I demand Obama drop out.

We have now descended into the most trivial BS that dresses up as important issues. This is how we ended up with Bush in the first place.

OH MY GOD....THE KENNEDY AIRLIFT PROGRAM STARTED 48 YEARS AGO, NOT 49 YEARS AGO. OBAMA IS SUCH A LIAR. LET'S VOTE FOR HONEST HILLARY INSTEAD!!!!!

(or let's not and say we did....)

bitterpill8: Um, Obama wasn't around when his dad came to America, so he's obviously had to rely on others' story about it. (Yes, it is too bad it wasn't checked out better.)

Clinton was there in Tuzla (at least in body).

So sorry this is difficult for you to swallow.

It's not about Obama or Clinton, to me at least. It's about what the media fixates on.
Collectively they are such little people. Much easier to do stories about Hillary's laugh and Obama's not black enough or too black status than the horrible economy, Iraq, health care, etc.

rebekah: people are "transfixed by his eloquence and charisma" because he's eloquent and charismatic. Why he is, isn't the issue.

The real Barak Obama political story:

The Candidate Matures

He and others say Mr. Obama learned from that experience. Mr. Mikva recalls telling him about advice once given to John F. Kennedy by Cardinal Richard Cushing: “The cardinal said to him, ‘Jack, you have to learn to speak more Irish and less Harvard.’ I think I recounted that anecdote to Barack. Clearly, he learned how to speak more Chicago and less Harvard in subsequent campaigning.”

Mr. Shomon said, “There was a gradual progression of Barack Obama from thoughtful, earnest policy wonk/civil rights lawyer/constitutional law expert to Barack Obama the politician, the inspirer, the speaker.” Denny Jacobs, a friend of Mr. Obama and a former state senator, agreed. “He stumbled on the fact that instead of running on all the issues, quote unquote, that hope is the real key,” he said. “Not only the black community but less privileged people are looking for that hope. You don’t have to talk about health care, you have to talk about ‘the promise’ of health care. Hope is a pretty inclusive word. I think he is very good at selling that.”

source ->

www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html

So it seems that Mr Obama has been honing his political skills for some time now. Don't you people get it? How can anyone sane vote for an in-experienced less than one term Senator to lead this country, please explain that to me. This fraud is made up of inuendos, lies, and falsifications that makes Hillary's "mis-statement" pale in comparisom. YOU ARE HOODWINKED AMERICAN, TAKE OFF THE ROSE COLORED GLASSES BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!!

That's very funny Rush. A politician honing political skills! Why I never.

Rustydog,

Even if we accept your premise that Obama lacks experience and Hillary's time at the Rose law firm is experience, there is no proof that higher amounts experience leads to an effectve presidency:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

Cool link RKA.
I didn't realize that George Washington was a "career politician" (I kid!)

RKA:

Then explain to me this analogy, Would you jump in the passenger seat with a 16 year old who just received his learners permit from the DMV, or a driver that has logged over 800,000 miles for a cross-country trip?

Sorry to dissapoint, my vote will go for McCain. Neither Hillary or Obama has the experience to lead this Country at this time in History. Voting for historical purposes only, whether it be for the "first" Woman President or "first" Black President is not my idea of wise judgement.

There are way to many inconsistencies in both Democratic backgrounds and in the general election McCain will provide the leadership needed for those open enough to listen. "Hope" your way back to the 1960's and keep dreaming that Obama, the Messiah, is just an inexperienced egotistical immature man, who is definately not ready to lead a world power country.

KathyK,
accepted.
eloquence and charisma is just not as important to me as substance.
i don't really need a candidate who is related to an celebrity either and since my physical/emotional needs are met on an intimate tangible level i don't need my candidate to be sexy either.

sorry, meant to say any celebrity so that i'm not taking sides in the bradgelina debate.

Rush were you old enough to vote in 2000? If so, with experience mattering to you so much, who did you support?

Klein: ...and guess what? Clinton was far more effective than Obama.

As evidenced by Edward's ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton after he dropped from the race...

..You see, Joe, when you get a central fact that supports the narrative you've chosen wrong - and you have done that here at Swampland on a number of occasions - it's hard to take what you write seriously.

Having said all that, doesn't Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama state the complete opposite of the conclusions you've made? I imagine that it took a fair amount of the ability to 'connect' for Bill Richardson to - as James Carville put it - turn "Judas" on the Clintons and endorse Obama.

How can anyone sane vote for an in-experienced less than one term Senator to lead this country

Becuase the experienced seasoned ones have been unmitigated disasters.

Any other easy questions?

When I grow up I want to be a columnist like Joe Klein so I can take one "fact" and draw 8 million conclusions from it. Nevermind the fact this approach wouldn't pass muster in a 6th grade book report.

why yes paul dirks...i have a question.

do you not differentiate between relationships you've had for a long time and people you've just met?

while they are developing in the public eye it allows us to study and evaluate them.
one can have a variety of personalities in personal and public relationships but, one generally wants to know quite a lot about someone one is planning on a long term relationship with.
obama supporters remind me of people who go off to las vegas get drunk and married in a weekend only to go back and realize they have acted impetuously.

"Then explain to me this analogy, Would you jump in the passenger seat with a 16 year old who just received his learners permit from the DMV, or a driver that has logged over 800,000 miles for a cross-country trip?"

If the 16 year old was Speed Racer, and the driver with 800k miles logged was an annoying senile idiot who got in 8 accidents on his/her way across the country and got lost about 28 times, then yea.... i'd go with the 16 year old.

I'm surprised that J. Klein is peddling this kind of crap since he was doing quite well lately. I could be wrong but I think most people have had their fill of the press telling them who to vote for because of some character flaw or virtue, they may or may not have. We have plenty of evidence of what voting for the guy you want to have a beer with can lead to.

when one reduces ones opinion and decision concerning the candidates to a single issue like race/gender/age doesn't one lose sight of the issues that are at stake for our country?

it's not really about who one would like to spend an evening with is it? who one has the most/least in common with so that one is either secure or intriqued. i thought it was about who can remove the country from the mess we are in and stablize our economy and foreign policy. i dunno, maybe it's just me.

This whole 'experience' thing is giving me eerie reminders of another false premise we got in 2004: "Don't change horses int he middle of a stream."

Just like with Rusty's horrid analogy, the presumption is that the one you're already with is better than an unknown factor. Except with Bush and the 'horse', the known factor happens to be a known failure.

And with McCain, the 'experienced' driver, he's following the same path as Bush's horse.

Experience means nothing when it consistently leads you to all the wrong conclusions. Not to mention the 'young driver' can always learn easier than the 'experienced older driver' already set in his ways most times.

Some people earlier in the comments wondered about the white blue collar vote in PA.

Today's Phila Inquirer had a front page story with a lot of quotes from western PA where Obama began his bus tour.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_left_story/20080330_Winning_over_white__blue-collar_men_is_key_to_Pennsylvania_s_Democratic_primary.html

you can ride that analogy all day and you both just get further entrenched. obama isn't speed racer and mccain isn't senile.
this race isn't about who's the youngest. obviously obama is and the same people who say you can't paint obama with the wright brush invariably paint mccain with the bush brush. if you are going to judge by association then you must accept that others will judge your candidate by associations.

First off, I'm originally from Illinois so I know about the environment that he came up in.

Second off, I thought it was thoroughly refreshing that he was willing to speak clearly about Pakistan. The more he was attacked, the more I realized that he had created a chink in the armor of Conventional Wisdom and Taboos that have driven a clearly disaterous foreign policy.

Thirdly he's been willing to say the right thing on the particular issue I find most important, FISA and telecom immunity:

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2008/01/full-text-from-obama-campaign-retelecom.html

The bottom line, is that I didn't come to my preference without seroius thought. I can't say the same for people who toss around "experience" as if it refers to anything of demonstated value.

The thing with the McCain/Bush association is that, even by his own rhetoric, McCain's stances on the war, health care, etc. mirror Bush's own, while being glossed over by the media thanks to his buddy buddy relationship with them.

hmmm... well i guess we just have to agree to disagree :) i see mccain as very different from bush in his approach and ideology. his genuine experiences in both war times and politics, his lack of arrogance and his honesty and he is generally impulsive to a fault when he speaks so i don't hear a lot of rhetoric. so long as he doesn't have a cheney in his situation he is my candidate so far but, i haven't committed.

i see mccain as very different from bush in his approach and ideology.

Look at McCain's list of foreign policy advisers. They are the same NeoCons who put us in Iraq, including (so wrong for so long) Bill Kristol. McCain's scheme to create a "League of Democracies" would undermine the UN and create a US-led gang to start wars of choice all over the world.

This is a very, very dangerous foreign policy direction, and you should look at his advisers and their backgrounds closely before you fall for his charm act.

Did I mentions that McCain has lied repeatedly about the identity of our enemies in Iraq in order to further the cause of demonizing Iran.

It's bad enough that he wants to widen the war, but to engage in precisely the same confusion tactics that allowed Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to become connected in people's minds but not in actual fact points to a deeply troubling situation should he gain the Presidency.

thanks for the advice HH. lol, i've never really considered him charming but, then i don't know him personally and i will certainly do more research on his "league of democracies"...where would you suggest i start with that?

thanks paul...i thought yaw were contributing that to a senior moment. i didn't realize it was now accepted that me was actually embedding that thought in our psyche.

*he*
sorry not a good blogger :/

McCain proposes "League of Democracies" to bypass U.N. -- maybe Russia & China too

"Sen. John McCain says that if he's elected president, he wants to create a worldwide "League of Democracies" to "revive democratic solidarity" and bypass gridlock at the United Nations.

"The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the U.N. fails to act," such as in Darfur, McCain says in advance excerpts of a speech he's making Tuesday to the Hoover Institution.

According to the excerpts, provided by his campaign, McCain envisions the new organization taking on AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and "the crisis in our environment." He says it could also put pressure on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval."

Sounds like Russia and China might not be invited to join. Asked about that, McCain spokesman Danny Diaz declined to elaborate.

McCain says he would call a summit of world democracies in his first year to explore the practical steps needed to realize his vision."

Source: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/04/mccain_proposes.html

The search string "McCain League of Democracies" generates one million hits on Google. You might start there.

There is a difference between having experience and having a track record. I am less concerned about Obama's lack of experience - experience is a plus for me, but it's not a deciding factor - and more concerned about the fact that he has such a short track record. Almost all of his work in the Illinois Senate was done at the end of his time there, and he was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, so his CV is based on a very short period of time. He talks about his time as a community organizer - which is good experience for a politician - but we just don't know a lot about his work in that field (I've read the articles, but there is really not a lot of detail). And I find that having a sense of the sweep of someone's life helps me get a better understanding of their character. Clearly his books have been helpful in showing more of his track record - I don't think he would be a successful candidate if he hadn't written those books; they help make his character more understandable - but even he admits that his first book was not closely tied to the facts. This isn't a criticism of Obama, but it does mean that there are still a lot of questions about him.

"being able to manipulate your environment is essential to a child from a mixed race heritage that is bounced around the globe between widely divergent people and family members." - Rebekah, you could say the same about McCain's time in a POW camp, and Clinton's childhood efforts to please both her racist Conservative father and her left-wing minister. And it would be completely irrelevant.

Rustydog, John McCain hasn't logged 800,000 miles for a cross-country trip, he and George Bush drove us into an Iraq ditch. Sorry, I don't want to get into that car.

And more importantly, why would I want to get in a car with someone with a serious problem with road rage?

If someone cut McCain off in his lane, I'd be worried he'd nuke 'em.

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180007

As I said. Lied repeatedly.

Look at McCain's list of foreign policy advisers. They are the same NeoCons who put us in Iraq, including (so wrong for so long) Bill Kristol. McCain's scheme to create a "League of Democracies" would undermine the UN and create a US-led gang to start wars of choice all over the world.

And debunking a corrupt UN is a bad thing??? The UN is a joke and everyone knows it. Forgot "Oil for Food"?

The UN is all about one thing and one thing only, keep taking the American tax payers' dollar to prop it up and exist. The IAEA is a complete waste of time and money. The UN never follows up with sanctions so dictators of Iran, Cuba, Venezeula and North Korea are diplomatically placed into a contained corner to themselves.

thanks HH, i read that from the brietbart.com and several others and i guess i'm still hungup on the MAYBE point of russia and china.
i see that as speculative at best and i can't help but think if we had had something like that in place before iraq perhaps the cowboy effect of bush and cheney could have been avoided. i see him as wanting a more global, "league" involvement.

thanks rose. i would think both mccain's and clinton's childhood would fit within the same conversation...i just wasn't addressing them in the conversation and i don't think one's childhood and interactions with the authority figures in it are irrelevant or i guess we would have to say both of his books were.

McCain is more more more of the catastrophic Bush doctrine:

"Randy Scheunemann is McCain's new defense and foreign policy adviser. He is a former adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He was President of the pre-war Committee for the Liberation of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein.

"Steve Schmidt, is McCain's high powered new political strategist. He worked on Bush's 2004 campaign and was Bush's attack dog whenever former Presidential candidate John Kerry criticized the Iraq War policy. They join other neocons on McCain's campaign like former CIA director James Woolsey.

"[James] Woolsey helped direct US attention toward Iraq after 9/11 when on the next day he falsely accused the Iraqi Government of having a role in it.

"Joining Scheunemann, a veteran neoconservative strategist and one of the chief architects of the Iraq War, are a panoply of like-minded neocons who've gathered to advise McCain, including Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Gary Schmitt and Maj. Ralph Peters."

Source: Robert Dreyfuss

Bill Kristrol! A bigger group of INCOMPETENT war-mongers, all neoconservatives, you will not find anywhere else. And they are on the McCain team.

Why you think McCain somehow offers something different than the Bush catastrophe is entirely baffling. Do your homework.

The Oil for Food scandal? You mean the Texas guy?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/world/middleeast/18oilfood.html

The American people do not deserve a pompous A-- like Obama. Arrogance should have been his first name and distorted the second. That is all we get from him , he will be worse in the President chair than Bush, or at least the equivalent to him. Obama has been used to people in politics just handing positions over to him. Check out his Illinois legislative tenure, nothing until 2002. Emril Jones became Senate majority and handed Obama high profile legislation, even those that other Senator were working on, in order to built his resume to US senate. Less than 20% of the population of Illinois knew who Obama was. He took out of one of Rev. Wright's sermons the title of his book. Took from Rezko donations that was tainted to finance his run to the US Senate. He is a taker , manipulator,calculating and cunning politician. Business will as usual when he get into the White House, money from unregistered lobbyist, words, ideas and solutions that other propose because he is incapable of doing on his own.

because someone reaches a different conclusion from reading the same text does not mean they have not done their homework...it means they disagree with you, as i do good sir :)
if i was in your position i would probably attempt to paint mccain with the bush brush too but then you open up the conversation for your candidate being judged by the company (i'm assuming he)keeps and i don't think you want to do that.

Boston Globe: McCain talks the campaign finance talk, walks the corrupt corporate walk:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/30/mccains_commitment_to_public_financing_questioned/

Also, Charlie Black is now full-time, unpaid. How much is THAT inkind contribution worth?

Oh, and we're still waiting for the analysis of the impact of McCain's violating FECA.

Well, I don't see how by any kind of rational thought process you can arrive at the conclusion that John McCain offers anything different in the foreign policy arena than the catastrophic Bush doctrine. Jes sayin'.

It is important to understand that McCain's advisers follow the teachings of political philosopher Leo Strauss. Strauss maintained that a natural elite (the Wise) needed to use religion and warfare to maintain the masses of society in an obedient and healthy state. To that end, "noble lies" (like WMD and "war on terror") would be used to control them.

McCain and his advisers will represent themselves as peace-loving and reasonable until he is installed in the White House. Then "there will be more wars."

It is important to understand that McCain's advisers follow the teachings of political philosopher Leo Strauss. Strauss maintained that a natural elite (the Wise) needed to use religion and warfare to maintain the masses of society in an obedient and healthy state. To that end, "noble lies" (like WMD and "war on terror") would be used to control them.
McCain and his advisers will represent themselves as peace-loving and reasonable until he is installed in the White House. Then "there will be more wars." Posted by HH | March 30, 2008 2:57 PM

You believe everything on the Ariana Hugginton FAR LEFT EXTREMIST POST, don't you HH???

I knew that is was where you got all your crack-pot ideas from.