[Jason W.] “We’ve heard this about the Clintons from the start: they would do anything.”
[Seth Finkelstein] “One would hope . The Republicans certainly will.”
Well they won’t have to work hard to point out that she’s a ruthless liar.

The problem is that the Democrats, especially certain advisors to the campaigns, are only willing to do Karl Roves on each other- when it comes to facing the Republicans, they are all sweetness and light. Which makes me wonder if certain prominent Democratic advisors aren’t, in fact, Republican sabateurs.

I can appreciate the idea of Obama, and even consider him the best the Democrats could hope for at the moment. However, I could personally never vote for him and Michael’s original post above finally puts words to why:

“I find his comparisons of himself to Reagan troubling, particularly because his “hope” message is extremely vague and mythical. I find his speeches to be tantamount to an inspiring homily/sermon with a message to pray more…oh and don’t forget to drop a donation in the collection basket. I’m sorry, I want more from my president.”

I have been waiting, hoping for Obama to put forth more substantive ideas and policies…..yet all I continue seeing from him are speeches and messages that don’t really “mean” anything. This only makes him emblematic of what you all want him to be, thus making it easier to like/champion him.

At the core of it all is the deep desire from many Americans to have a President that, let’s face it, gives them warm fuzzies and instills hope and confidence. Obama certainly does this, but it is as Michael put it “tantamount to an inspiring homily with a message to pray more.” He needs to put forth articulate, packaged agenda and policy or I’m voting McCain.

I’m still super-puzzled, however, by Clinton, her team and supporters continuing to pound on the IL “present” votes. Assuming that the Clintons and their team either understand IL politics, or are not too lazy to pick up the phone and ask, my current conclusion is that their bet is that the general public is either unsophisticated or lazy (themselves), and will never themselves understand the nuances of “present” votes. Under this assumption, then, it then becomes a perfect attack vehicle to use in the service of attempting to undermine one of Obama’s claimed strengths.

An insightful piece by a Planned Parenthood worker who claims to have coordinated the strategy of present votes with Obama in the service of helping advance women’s rights can be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-fischman/a-vote-for-obama-is-a-vot_b_82842.html

Would appreciate anyone’s thoughtful counter-argument – which I would assume would take the line that “even given the particularities of IL politics, you can’t vote present and be considered anything other than a fence-straddler, because…”

Did a lawyer ever have a client who he called a “slumlord.”? They are all low-income houseing providers.

Perhaps Obama learned more tricks from Clinton than Rove. Just say the New York Times said it was untrue when the New York Times was quoting a lawyer for balance.

I guess all the facts in the world wouldn’t matter since you showed your true colors by writing you agree with Chris Matthews – I guess Obama’s got the sexist vote all tied up. Awesome!

In my opinion, her supporters post replies all over blogs to any negative criticism of Hillary to try and mask that she is far from a strong woman and a fighter. She is a panderer and an opportunist. Chris Mathews was correct when he said she wouldn’t be Senator if Bill hadn’t cheated on her. It’s just sad that he was forced to apologize because that isn’t the politically correct thing to say.

As an aside, are any of the candidates ever asked to comment on the DMCA, internet censorship, ever-changing copyright law, etc? One issue I see not being addressed is the fact that there aren’t many politicians who have knowledge of internet/internet speech/internet privacy/copyright issues. As we continue to move more and more into the internet world, many politicians don’t understand the ramifications of their votes and I fear just do what corporate lobbyists tell them to. When you have Senators voting on internet regulations and laws who say things like “My aide sent me an internet” or “the internet is a series of tubes,” that alarms me.