Obama's Gloves Are Off - And May Stay Off

Washington Post: Democrat Built His Campaign On Being Different, But In Pennsylvania His Image Was Coarsened

(WASHINGTONPOST.COM)  This story was written by Jonathan Weisman.

---

Unable once again to score a knockout, Sen. Barack Obama is likely to make his new negative tone even more negative -- with a sharp eye on trying to end the Democratic presidential nomination fight after the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's victory yesterday in Pennsylvania has only accentuated the quandary that Obama faces: Stay negative and he risks undermining the premise of his candidacy. Stay aloof and he underscores Clinton's argument that he will not be able to beat a "Republican attack machine" sure to greet him this summer.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe indicated last night which of those options they would take. "We've done a lot of counterpunching. We've been swift and effective," he said. "For Democrats judging how we're going to perform as the nominee, we have been relentless."

Obama himself took up the cudgel after Clinton delivered a victory speech in Philadelphia devoid of attack lines. Without naming Clinton, he suggested in Evansville, Ind., that she is a captive to the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies, that she "says and does whatever it takes to win the next election," and that she exploits division for political gain.

"In the end, this election is still our best chance to solve the problems we've been talking about for decades -- as one nation, as one people," Obama said.

But the candidate who rocketed to stardom as the embodiment of a new kind of politics -- hopeful, positive and inspiring -- saw his image tarnished in the bruising fight for Pennsylvania. Provoked by Clinton's repeated references to his remarks about the state's voters and her charges that he is an "elitist," Obama struck back in the closing days of the campaign.

"It's a real danger for Obama, and if you look at these recent ads, the messages they're delivering in all these conference calls, it's a far cry from last fall," when the theme of hope emerged amid calls for a more negative tone, said Democratic consultant Steve Elmendorf, a Clinton supporter.

Republican strategist John Feehery put it less charitably: "That's the danger of running as holier-than-thou. You have a lot farther to fall."

Late last year, with the Iowa caucuses looming and Clinton maintaining huge leads in national polling, Obama donors and advisers pressured the campaign to begin drawing sharper distinctions with the senator from New York. Its response was to stay positive, but to out-organize Clinton, especially in caucus states where the organizational acumen of senior Obama aides could be put to best use.

The strategy helped Obama build what is still likely to be an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, total states won and popular votes, while his message filled arenas, inspired artists and energized young voters. But that was not enough yesterday to win over the working-class core of the Democratic Party.

In early exit polls, Clinton was carrying white voters by 24 percentage points, union households by 18 points, and voters without college degrees by 16 points -- all that, according to the Clinton campaign, "after the Obama campaign's 'go-for-broke' Pennsylvania strategy, after their avalanche of negative ads, negative mailers and negative attacks against Sen. Clinton, after their record-breaking spending in the state."

If Obama's image was coarsened in Pennsylvania, the next round of primaries may do it even more damage. But Obama advisers say the campaign is in a far different place than it was last fall. The senator from Illinois is much better known nationally, with an image that will not be easily recast -- either by his opponents or his own tactics.

"Are there some people who might see him as less than the idealistic candidate that he was at the beginning of this process? Certainly," said an Obama adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity last night. "But part of what we are trying to do is confront an effort by his opponents to paint him negatively. At some point, he's got to be able to respond."

[iamthequeen-]

If Clinton is "captive to the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies" then why doesn''t her campaign have more money. Obama is one of those do as I say not as I do wussies. He can''t win the big states so the days of Yes We Can are now replaced with We Can''t So We Sling like the rest of them. Yet another superdelegate, Casey, that went with the loser. Just like Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson. Wake up America and see Obama for what he is, loser. He knows he needs to convince voters like me to switch sides, but I have news for him I''m voting McCain unless Clinton is the nominee. You see, old white folks would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. Since Pelosi and gang did NOTHING with the mandate we gave them, they have no arguments to convince me that McCain is any worse than the current bunch of do-nothing Democrats. And as far as Obama thinking he can be the uniter of Congress, show me ONE time he convinced a Republican to SWITCH their vote for any MEANINGFUL legislation. This core Democrat is indeed bitter.

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by iamthequeen- at 08:56 AM : Apr 23, 2008

Well said!

[popstom1]

The whinning has started not just the Obamanites
But MSNBC FOX and CNN has joined in too

[libh8er]

Barry Ubama is an empty vessel.....aside from graduating from college, he has accomplished nothing. He pays homage to terrorists and seeks their support. He attends a bigoted ''church''. He feels pity for people who ''cling'' to guns and God as a way to cope with hard times.

In a general election race against the Great Pumpkin, he would lose.

[tongassberry]

Obama 08! ... For Change Vote Obama! ... John Mellencamp - Small Town http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDkAG3R0h8 ... Bruce Springsteen - Radio Nowhere http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLt6kcZ72Q ... Supporting Barack Obama 08!

[libh8er]

''they have no arguments to convince me that McCain is any worse than the current bunch of do-nothing Democrats.''

Conservatives, like me, know that you speak the truth. McCain''s position as the nominee in this race is a GREAT disappointment to us.

[DCropp]

Irony: a Democratic candidate trying to win the race in an un-Democratic way.

As we move closer to June, the media will focus on Hillary wanting super delegates to save the day for her.

Here''s an ad that would catch everyone''s attention. Several people dressed in Superman outfits (replace the S with the Democratic party logo). Have them fly in and declare Democracy failed, so they give the nomination to Hillary.

If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans will use this idea. It will be the ad that is remembered for generations.

[shawnp1968]

Hillary is going to have to be held responsible as the individual who brought the democratic party to it''s knees! If she was "really" about uniting the party, she would have dropped out of the race a month ago. She is so far behind in delegates that she can''t win that race. The only way for her to win the nomination is for the super delegates to go against the grain and against the voice of the voters. That just doesn''t sound like a healthy plan to me! Hillary needs to accept the fact that her road to the white house is going to have to go thru an invitation from President Obama!

[zerato-2009]

Undemocratic way?? I would say that Clinotn does have more votes in the nomination process tahn obama has. So I guess you would consider that undemocratic?

[mbcsmith]

Clinton thoroughly STOMPED Obama in PA. The Dems are finally catching on to the fact that Hussein Obama needs a pickup truck to carry all the baggage he has.

[shawnp1968]

Clinton thoroughly STOMPED Obama in PA. The Dems are finally catching on to the fact that Hussein Obama needs a pickup truck to carry all the baggage he has.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mbcsmith at 09:30 AM : Apr 23, 2008


10 percentage points isn''t exactly a stopming in the world of politics!!! Not to mention the fact that she is still LOSING in every category of this proccess!!!!

[bfjones666]

Does anybody remember the "OLD MATH" This is a media critical comment. The official results from the Pennsylvania primary was Clinton 54.3%, Obama 45.7% which the media calls 55-45 to give the illusion of a double digit, 10-point victory. Truth is the difference between 54.3 and 45.7 is actually 8.6, which you can''t call double digits. Once again, the media buys into the notion that we, the people are too stupid to do anything but accept whatever they report as gospel. Its pathetic.

[mbcsmith]

10 percentage points isn''''t exactly a stopming in the world of politics!!! Not to mention the fact that she is still LOSING in every category of this proccess!!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by SHAWNP1968 at 09:34 AM : Apr 23, 2008

Yep, ten points is a whuppin. Throw in Florida and Michigan and she has the lead.

[bfjones666]

Does anybody remember the "OLD MATH" This is a media critical comment. The official results from the Pennsylvania primary was Clinton 54.3%, Obama 45.7% which the media calls 55-45 to give the illusion of a double digit, 10-point victory. Truth is the difference between 54.3 and 45.7 is actually 8.6, which you can''t call double digits. Once again, the media buys into the notion that we, the people are too stupid to do anything but accept whatever they report as gospel. Its pathetic.

[bfjones666]

Does anybody remember the "OLD MATH" This is a media critical comment. The official results from the Pennsylvania primary was Clinton 54.3%, Obama 45.7% which the media calls 55-45 to give the illusion of a double digit, 10-point victory. Truth is the difference between 54.3 and 45.7 is actually 8.6, which you can''t call double digits. Once again, the media buys into the notion that we, the people are too stupid to do anything but accept whatever they report as gospel. Its pathetic.

[samthetvcat]

pt 3
Next step''ll be to ask her how SHE is going to unify the party because THAT is the true issue, not who can get blue-collar workers. She won''t have a viable answer as to what makes her superior, so then the question can be asked about why she won''t cooperate with unifying the party.

She won''t help unify the party, she she''s praising the GOP candidate while calling the Dem front-runner unelectable, she''s making GOP arguments, she''s aligned with the GOP and the GOP are aligned with her, she''s dividing the party, she won''t respect Howard Dean''s rules, she thinks she deserves to have an extra state more than Barack (Michigan), she''s limiting the time the nominee will have to switch gears to the general - at what point do DEMOCRATIC superdelegates step up to the plate and say we''re not going to reward disloyalty with indulgence? This election is too important for them to not take action.

I think the party elders need to support Barack''s efforts to unify the party, and if Hillary doesn''t get in line they pile on the superdelegates, squeeze her out, and nominate a charmer like Kathleen Sebelius.

Authority and containment is the only way to reign in rogue elements - I would have thought we''d learned that lesson after 8 years of Bush! :o

[samthetvcat]

pt 2
Hillary''s making the argument that Barack can''t win, and he can''t if continues to align with the GOP rather than we Dems. But the reality is that Hillary couldn''t win either UNLESS we Barack supporters continue to support her.

So here''s Barack''s argument - Hillary CANNOT WIN unless she can guarantee that Barack supporters are more loyal to the party than her own. She CANNOT make that argument because she has no control over us. Ahy would any of us return to her a gesture that she is not willing to return to us. The only argument she can really make is that as a whole Barack supporters are perhaps more economically desperate (?) And that''s so inherently insulting that it''s a lost cause.

So like I think Barack''s best tactic would be to make party loyalty paramount - explain the rationale, say he above else wants to make winning a priority (the opposite of taking off the gloves), and that he wants to extend a hand to Hillary and bring the party together. I think he should offer her VP - she''s likely to decline, so if so it starts to really sell the idea of her disloyalty to the Democratic party and winning and she gets boxed in.

[samthetvcat]

pt 1
---"Sen. Barack Obama is likely to make his new negative tone even more negative"---

Who decided this? No no no...I think this is the deal: there are 3 candidates in the race and they have like 33% support each with different groups of support - like Dems have around 66% of the country''s support and Repubs have like 33%, but because Dems are viciously in-fighting, when one group''s choice is not offered, like 15% of that group crosses the aisle to support the other guy. That''s an exaggeration in terms of the numbers, but the larger idea is that alone, none of them can win because whichever two groups gang up on the third will win.

Hillary''s got the upper hand now because Barack''s being opposed by the other two groups. When she was the GOP target, Barack had the upper hand because she was being opposed by two groups. We''ve got two strong candidates, who if supported by the other IF THINGS HADN''T GOTTEN BITTER would easily kick GOP butt. What the GOP are doing is basically like divide and conquer, and it''s working.

[repdemapart]

NOT JUST HIS GLOVES ... BUT EVEN HIS MASK !!!

[b-easy63]

"It''s a real danger for Obama, and if you look at these recent ads, the messages they''re delivering in all these conference calls, it''s a far cry from last fall," when the theme of hope emerged amid calls for a more negative tone, said Democratic consultant Steve Elmendorf, a Clinton supporter."

Of course Obama is sullied. It is what happens to anyone who has to finally fight back against the Clintons. Consider this--the Clintons and their antics are pretty much a lot of ugliness and ***********.and as anyone will tell you--"Ya mess with ******** and it will get all over you" LMAO

[repdemapart]

YOU NOBAMA-nites CAN SPIN IT ALL YOU CAN AND IN ALL THE WAYS YOU WANT ....

YOU LOST ... AND WILL LOSE BIG TIME .... JUST WATCH..

BTW - DON''T BE SO BITTER.

[samthetvcat]

RepDemApart, wow you sound panicky . . . LOL as well you should be

Dems 08, Repubs say ''let them eat cake'' :p

[javalation]

Obama will win NC, so the next "test" is Indiana. If Hillary is really out of money and in debt to small vendors and consultants, she may not be able to keep up there. Her hill is still gonna be hard to climb, so she''ll probably continue to lean on the Supers to throw it her way at the convention. Given a tie there, we could still have a candidate to come out of left field.

[b-easy63]

Next step''''ll be to ask her how SHE is going to unify the party because THAT is the true issue, not who can get blue-collar workers.
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 09:48 AM : Apr 23, 2008

Hillary does NOT have the unify the party. Most Obama supporters say they will vote for her no matter what she does. That means she can p1ss on Obama''s candidacy and his supporter''s heads too and they will still vote for her. With such blind obedience, why should she worry about unifying the party? HRC does not care if you like her or not --as long as you vote for her.

By stating no matter what she does, Obama supporters will still vote for her--she gets to do whatever she wants and all the Dems will suck it up. They say so themselves. Meanwhile her supporters threaten rebellion if she does not win. So which group should super delegates appease? The ones who will suck it up or the ones who rebel?

Wonder why they have not simply endorsed Clinton if this is the case? Because of the Independents. No matter what, they are needed to win and over 56% say they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. So they have to let it all play out.

Even if the sd give the nomination to Hillary--remember all you Obama supporters--you are still going to vote for her--no matter what....rotflmao. (I am voting for Obama, if Hillary is the nominee--I will not vote or vote for McCain. I''m an Independent--I owe the DNC no loyalty whatsoever)

[b-easy63]

CORRECTION:

Next step''''''''ll be to ask her how SHE is going to unify the party because THAT is the true issue, not who can get blue-collar workers.
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 09:48 AM : Apr 23, 2008

Hillary does NOT have TO unify the party. Most Obama supporters say they will vote for her no matter what she does. That means she can p1ss on Obama''''s candidacy and his supporter''''s heads too and they will still vote for her. With such blind obedience, why should she worry about unifying the party? HRC does not care if you like her or not --as long as you vote for her.

By stating no matter what she does, Obama supporters will still vote for her--she gets to do whatever she wants and all the Dems will suck it up. They say so themselves. Meanwhile her supporters threaten rebellion if she does not win. So which group should super delegates appease? The ones who will suck it up or the ones who rebel?

Wonder why they have not simply endorsed Clinton if this is the case? Because of the Independents. No matter what, they are needed to win and over 56% say they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. So they have to let it all play out.

Even if the sd give the nomination to Hillary--remember all you Obama supporters--you are still going to vote for her--no matter what....rotflmao. (I am voting for Obama, if Hillary is the nominee--I will not vote or vote for McCain. I''''m an Independent--I owe the DNC no loyalty whatsoever)

[mbcsmith]

Count the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan. Democracy demands it!

[b-easy63]

So like I think Barack''''s best tactic would be to make party loyalty paramount - explain the rationale, say he above else wants to make winning a priority (the opposite of taking off the gloves), and that he wants to extend a hand to Hillary and bring the party together. I think he should offer her VP - she''''s likely to decline, so if so it starts to really sell the idea of her disloyalty to the Democratic party and winning and she gets boxed in. Posted by SamTheTVCat at 09:48 AM : Apr 23, 2008

I agree with a lot of your analysis except Hillary would jump at the VP slot. She knows how to hamstring the obvious powers and she knows also her nomination is a very, very long shot rife with peril for the party. So she would be on the ticket and Obama would have her and her attack machine at his back, undermining him all the way and eventually, he would be a figure head and she would be running things, just like she did a lot when Bill was in office.

[repdemapart]

HOPE WILL NOT PAY YOUR MORTGAGE ...

HOPE WILL NOT PAY YOUR GAS ....

HOPE WILL NOT CURE YOUR CANCER ...

HOPE WILL NAT MAKE YOU WIN IN NOVEMBER ...

NOBAMA IS GIVING Y''ALL FALSE-HOPE.

[samthetvcat]

b-easy63, but that''s the point of Obama calling Hillary out on her disloyalty . . . he needs to point out how his supporters are extending a gesture to her that her supporters are not extending to him and that the paradox is that those showing greater party loyalty are paradoxically getting penalized because it is making her case against him stronger.

We''ll see how open to Hillary North Carolina and Indiana really are if that''s the case Hillary''s trying to make. Time to put it all on the table . . .

PS I can''t remember what you''ve posted in the past in terms of showing support for Obama, but you too sound rather panicky . . . hmmm

[samthetvcat]

---"I agree with a lot of your analysis except Hillary would jump at the VP slot."---
Posted by b-easy63''

If she takes it that''d be awesome! Time to move forward and start attacking the GOP!

[b-easy63]

Count the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan. Democracy demands it!

Posted by mbcsmith at 10:01 AM : Apr 23, 2008


Let the superdelegates get one vote each like every other American and don''t nullify the will of the voters--Democracy demands it. The problems with Fl and Mi is that they wilfully disobeyed the rules knowing the stakes and that when the sd decide the election, they will have to either up hold the actual tallies (Mi can''t count because the candidates were not on the ballot and Fl cannot count due to many in the state not voting because they knew their votes were not supposed to count) or they will have to disenfranchise all of the states who actually held legitimate DNC sanctioned primaries and caucuses. Either way, to speak of disenfranchisement is hypocritical.

Mi and Fl deliberately broke the rules--but the rest of the states did not--why should their votes be overturned by sd? The fact is, the ugly reality of the Dem system rigged nomination system is finally coming home to roost---and in an election year when they can least afford to lose.

[josephhrvy]

when will they start focusing on the issues that has everyone concerned about the future of this great country whether you''re white or black or hispanic we know that we are in a recession heading towards a depression gas prices,mortgages,bank problems,credit card charges violence in the streets [gangs] i would love to hear how they will attack these problems that facing us rather than hear them attack each other.theyare giving the republicans a lot of ammo to use against the both of them. they need to get serious about whats facing this great nation

[samthetvcat]

---"Count the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan. Democracy demands it!"---
Posted by mbcsmith

Yeah, you wish McSame lover! :p

[mbcsmith]

Mi and Fl deliberately broke the rules--but the rest of the states did not--why should their votes be overturned by sd? The fact is, the ugly reality of the Dem system rigged nomination system is finally coming home to roost---and in an election year when they can least afford to lose.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 10:06 AM : Apr 23, 2008


Rest assured these disenfranchised voters in Fl and MI will remember this in November.

[b-easy63]

---"I agree with a lot of your analysis except Hillary would jump at the VP slot."---
Posted by b-easy63''''

If she takes it that''''d be awesome! Time to move forward and start attacking the GOP!

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 10:05 AM : Apr 23, 2008


It would not be awesome if you actually wanted Obama to come through on some of his promises of change--because she would not allow it. A President is not an island and can move or change nothing without consensus from his party. Her people would be in charge or constantly making the same mess of the adminstration as they did of her campaign. It would be a nightmare. If Obama linked himself with Hillary, that would not be change at all and he would lose most of the independent voters. And I, and my cadre would be among the first to dessert him.

[hhkeller]

Hope this, hope that, Hope is a four letter word that some PR guy throws around to play to new voters stupidity. Obama waivers on most important issues and could care less whether we all join hand in a love fest. He just like his own reflection more than the nations reflection just like most guy politicians do. If he had years of doing good deeds for the nation he would have won this months ago.

[b-easy63]

Rest assured these disenfranchised voters in Fl and MI will remember this in November.

Posted by mbcsmith at 10:09 AM : Apr 23, 2008


They should--and then they should remember this the next time they want to flout the rules. ON the other hand that is 2 states with Fl going GOP anyway most likely. If the DNC plays it the other way they could lose 30 states or more if the supporters feel they cheated them out of their pick. The Dems cannot win without Independents and over half their party. They can win with Independents, even if 1/4 of HRC supporters leave.

[ymaxoneil]

ComeCome on %u2013 did we really expect for old white men sitting around in those rural areas of Philadelphia to vote for a black candidate? Aw hell naw! LOL! %u201CPhiladelphia freedom%u201D%u2026huh? NOT!

I just think it is so ironic that the voters that support Hillary in these rural areas have Hillary to thank for companies shipping their jobs overseas for cheaper employment. Old white men sitting around blaming a black candidate and reverend Wright for their problems, really sad. Barack was never going to win their votes. He could have went to a picnic, shooting, hiking, camping, to church with these people and they would NEVER have voted for him because simply and bluntly put, HE IS BLACK and THEY ARE WHITE. There are some people who will never see beyond the color of a black persons skin and will always believe that black people are the inferior race. Unfortunately the majority of these rural areas (not just in Philadelphia) believe this to be true and would DIE before they cast their vote for a black person.

[b-easy63]

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 10:04 AM : Apr 23, 2008


If you can''t remember --you must not get out much. I have been blogging and supporting Obama all year. Just go into any cbs blog about politics and Obama or Clinton. But I am a realist and a realist who is connecting the dots should very well be panicky. I was panicky when Gore was running ( I said the GOP would cheat) I was panicky when Kerry was running ( I said Kerry did not fight back and was boring as hell). I was panicky about the war (I said it would be terrible and Bush would lie or frame his way into a war in 2001) the only time I was not panicky was in 2006--because the dots said the Dems would win.

But unlike Dem supporters, I am not a loyalist. I listen to all sides and have friends in both parties. I know the game, you can see my take on it in the Clinton wins article comment section. The game is deeper than many Dems think and their inability to think of the game is why it is playing out so well.

I despise Hillary Clinton and think she is very dishonest. I also despise the way she ran this campaign. It will come back to bite her--and only her supporters will be surprised. It is so obvious. I would never vote for her in this election. NEVER. She runs the campaign this way--precisely because Obama supporters gave her the green light to do so with their unwavering support no matter what. It is the natural result of "carte blanche"

[mbcsmith]

They should--and then they should remember this the next time they want to flout the rules. ON the other hand that is 2 states with Fl going GOP anyway most likely. If the DNC plays it the other way they could lose 30 states or more if the supporters feel they cheated them out of their pick. The Dems cannot win without Independents and over half their party. They can win with Independents, even if 1/4 of HRC supporters leave.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 10:11 AM : Apr 23, 2008

It is ludicrous to think that the millions of individual voters in FL and MI had anything to do with the date change. They are the VICTIMS.

[ymaxoneil]

Jon Stewart said jokingly on TV the other night %u201CTell us the truth! Are you going to ENSLAVE the white race?!%u201D It was supposed to be funny and it was; BUT%u2026that is exactly what some white people and republican pundits think. Pathetic%u2026but true and last night victory in all those rural areas for Hillary Clinton proved that to be exactly true.
People keep saying he has to toughen up. But tell me this if he toughens up and starts calling Hillary Clinton on her blatant lies and hypocrisy what will happen? They media will jump all over it and try to say he is back tracking on his positive message. The reality of it is there is nothing positive to say about Hillary Clinton. Hillary is great a spinning a story for her benefit and people eat it up; especially white people in the face of obvious lies, manipulations and betrayals against the American people.

[rushlimpdrug]

" . . .she "says and does whatever it takes to win the next election," and that she exploits division for political gain."


Now is he talking about Hillary or himself?


Now that he has established himself as not sticking to
his "principles" how can we trust anything he says?

[jonswift2]

As an Illinois resident I was moved by Barack Obama from the first time I heard him speak in the debates leading up to the Senate race here. Only having the time to listen to him on the radio, I was moved that someone who my prejudices told me was probably an old Irish Chicago politician named O''Bama, with a weird first name, was able to speak so eloquently and intelligently to our problems. I am amazed that he has come this far. I was concerned when in one of the earlier debates, Hillary Clinton raised his assertion the Reagan was a "transformative president", and he responded the she and Bill and lavished "fulsome praise" on Reagan as well. This seemed somewhat naive, given that is the same country that elected George W Bush twice. No, he should have said he would "obliterate" anyone who said he supported Reagan''s policies. I had thought that he might be brought down by stupid racists. That was denial on my part, it isn''t the racism, it is the stupidity. If Obama loses the nomination to the Clinton attack machine it will be because he tries to speak not spin. If he prevails, it now looks like it will be because he will really start to sling mud. I have mixed feelings about his taking this course. My hope, is that he will somehow win this round of American Gladiator, and when he is president insert the intelligence, attention to the gravity of our problems, and true compassion that has been so missing from the Bush presidency and the Clinton campaign

[samthetvcat]

b-easy63, it''s my ADHD! :(

Kathleen Sebelius would be ideal - definitely preferable to Hillary. Red state Governor (Kansas), Catholic, her dad was Governor of Ohio, she''s a mom, she''s also got roots in Michigan, strong record of educational reform . . .

Hopefully Hillary will say no! LOL. Women will LOVE Sebelius . . .

[b-easy63]

Obama can make party loyalty paramount and perhaps even influence those supporters of his who are Democrat--but he does not control nor can he guarantee he can deliver the Independent vote. Without that vote--the Dems cannot win the GE. Given that the Dems in total are only 36% of the electorate. that is a mathematical fact.

And Hillary will not care if only he makes his people loyal to the party--and she does NOT care what any Dem group thinks--as long as they vote for her--and if they are trained to vote party, they will hold their nose and do so--but we won''t . (Independents) she does not have our votes and we owe the Dems NOTHING and will not ever blindly support them just to secure a win for their party. We are voting for an idea NOT for a party. IN fact, many of us Independents loathe the Dem party as well as the GOP--we are voting for a Dem because right now, we hate the GOP more OR because Obama has inspired us--when/if he is no longer in the equation watch the support go to McCAin. (for a precursor see the flight of indies after the Wright speech. HIllary got 0%, the ones who left went to McCain)

[samthetvcat]

b-easy - oops, that was supposed to say ''Sorry!'' first :)

[jack3213]

PA, PRIMARY WAS CLINTONS LAST WIN. SHE IS DIVIDING THE PARTY BECAUSE SHE IS SELFISH AND WOMEN FLOCK TO HER ONLY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN, NOT BECAUSE SHE IS MOST QUALIFIED. THIS DOES NOT FAIR WELL FOR WOMEN. SAD AS IT IS, OBAMA IS ONLY POPULAR BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR. MCCAIN WILL WIN GENERAL AND ALL THIS NONSENSE WILL BE IN VAIN. SHAME ON THEM FOR NOT DOING WHAT IS RIGHT AND CLAIMING TO KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU.

[samthetvcat]

From Wikipedia, on Gov. Sebelius:

---"In November 2005 Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education %u2014 all without raising taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature."---

[cfin5]

Gloves off?....cool! We can do that too. You think your an intellectual Mohamed Ali just because your quick with smackin'' off. Why, that''s an excellent Achilles Heel to play with. Now I''m re-interested in this campaign.

[repdemapart]

HOPE WILL NOT PAY YOUR MORTGAGE ...

HOPE WILL NOT PAY YOUR GAS ....

HOPE WILL NOT CURE YOUR CANCER ...

HOPE WILL NAT MAKE YOU WIN IN NOVEMBER ...

NOBAMA IS GIVING Y''''ALL FALSE-HOPE.