I see tactics galore in the Obama campaign, complete with 3 clear instances where he tried to pin stuff on Hillary that came from his campaign.

So this is just generalized demonization post stuff.

Be specfific.

and don’t try to pretend you thought you were posting at a blog that has no clear leaning.

Be specific…..or go back to Huffpo, and feel the love.

One of Hillary’s chief stategists and her former campaign manager, Patty Solis Doyle, has expressed admiration for Rove and vowed to run Hillary’s campaign based on Rove’s strategies.

It is interesting that, while the Clinton supporters are accusing Obama of running a Rovian campaign, everybody else sees the Clinton campaign in that role.

Your first sentence is not a sentence. In your second sentence, the word is properly spelled “incoherent.”

Please don’t take my comments amiss. I’m just trying to help you work your way a bit further up the old intellectual food chain.

Seems that the Hillary supporters are sounding more and more like the Republican slime eels.

One of the more disturbing aspects of George Bush’s personality is the offhand way he can’t seem to stop “improving” his stories to present himself in a better light. One example is his story to CNN about having seen the first plane hit the North Tower live on TV before going into the classroom to read My Pet Goat. When it was pointed out to him that the only video of the first impact, part of a French documentary being made about a mid-town firehouse, and that the video wasn’t aired until many hours after the attack, Bush continued blithely to tell his lies. What’s scary is that he lies when there is no advantage to lying, and nothing to lose by telling the truth.

Hillary has that same personality quirk. Whether it is little lies, like telling Sir Edmund Hillary that her mother named her after him even though she was born five years before he climbed Everest, or her “embellishment” of her arrival in Bosnia, or her story that Chelsea was in danger on 9/11 when she was jogging near the WTC (which was debunked by Chelsea herself, who asserted she was at the other end of the city), or her attempt to take credit for the SCHIP, even though the White House was fighting the SCHIP legislation because they though it would endanger a larger budget bill. She claimed she negotiated the release of the hostages in Macedonia, despite the fact that they were released the day before she got there. Now, she claims she opposed NAFTA from the beginning and was trying to talk her husband out of it “I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.”. Yet, 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released under the Freedom of Information Act in March show that she was an ardent supporter of NAFTA all along.

In a debate in February, Hillary claimed that “We bombed them [Iraq] for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors.”

In truth, the mission had been planned for months, and UNSCOM chariman Richard Butler has acknowledged that he unilaterally pulled out the inspectors without even consulting the UN, under pressure from President Clinton to remove them as an excuse for the bombing, and to protect them from the risk of being caught in the massive U.S. airstrikes that were imminent.

So, either Hillary was lying about why Clinton attacked Iraq, or she was lying about whether she was intimately involved with foreign policy during her husband’s administration.

Her husband has told at least as many direct lies during the campaign as she has.

So, I wouldn’t be so quick to diagnose Obama with any sort of personality disorder while supporting two pathological liars who say anything at any time if they think it might advance their crusade to return to the ultimate power trip.

2) Obama learned from the failed Illinois experiment that it was a bad idea. McCain and Clinton failed to learn the same lesson. As for Paul Krugman, whom I knew in passing when I lived in Princeton, he is a hard-core Hillary supporter and just about the only credible economist to try to justify Hillary’s proposal. There’s always one scientist you can quote to “prove” that global warming doesn’t exist, or that the Earth is really flat. Krugman has lost much of his credibility in his blind attempts to defend the undefensible.

3) The President does not have the authority under our form of government to declare war. That is reserved for the Senate. The President can provisionally commit us to war in the case of an attack on our own country, as long as she goes to the Congress as soon as possible and gets it confirmed.

Hillary said she would nuke Iran if it invaded Israel or any one of an unspecified number of other Middle East countries. The President has no such powers. She was demonstrating that she is assuming the same sort of “imperial powers” to make war that Bush claims (or that she doesn’t understand the constraints and powers of the Presidency, which is almost as bad).

4) Obama WAS running for State Senator in Illinois and an anti-war stance was just as threatening to his political career (if not more so, since Hillary didn’t have to run again until 2006).

As for being faked out by Bush, 21 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent voted AGAINST the 2002 resolution. Apparently not everybody was fooled, coerced, or triangulating. One problem with Hillary’s “regrets” is that she was years late in offering them, and then only long after the majority of the party had turned against the war and she saw her vote as a campaign problem.

5) That notwithstanding, she gave McCain plenty of sound bites. And, her comments on Obama don’t ring true - even to her own supporters who continue to demonize the evil strawman of Obama that the Clinton campaign so carefully erected after Obama became a real threat to topple her apple cart.

6) Or because the “anti-Clinton” media let it ride without comment and didn’t make an issue of it. Certainly not like they did with Obama’s “bitter” comment. As for RFK’s son, he’s not potentially in the gunsights. Obama is. ANY comment that might trigger (no pun intended) some lunatic to think about killing Obama is the sort of rash, poorly-thought-out, shoot-from-the-hip comment that a president or presidential candidate simply can’t say.

Besides, the fact that she said it twice before kind of makes her recent excuse that she only was thinking of the example because Teddy’s illness was on her mind a fabrication (to be polite).

I appreciate her “regrets” (which is NOT an apology) to the Kennedys. What has she had to say to Obama?

I am not an Obama fanatic. I started out as a Hillary supporter and have been gradually souring on her the more I see of her campaign style of divide by ridicule and derision (Karl Rove’s primary weapon) and her incompetence in managing her campaign finances, ever-changing strategies, and personnel shades of her debacle with the Clinton Health Care Proposal). On the other hand, I was very leery of Obama at the start, but the more I read of his position papers (which never seem to make the media), the more I hear him talk to people like he is talking to adults, the more I see how he has established an effective, well-organized, and well-managed campaign staff, the more I am coming to favor him.

And, having lived through the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King (on my 20th birthday) and Robert F. Kennedy, I am personally more than offended by her off-hand remark - I am appalled. Though she didn’t say it in so many words, the clear implication was that she should stick around in case somebody offs the black boy.

At any rate, her argument for June was a bogus one. Her husband didn’t clinch the nomination until California voted in June, but he was already the presumptive nominee and had been so for a while. At any rate, California and other high-stakes primaries are no longer in June, they occur months earlier these days. California was on February 5, for example. All that’s left for June are Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota.

So the Bill-in-June argument is meaningless. But, so is the RFK argument. If Hillary had dropped out a month ago, and something happened to Obama between now and the Convention in August, Hillary would get a call from the DNC and would be right back in the middle of it - as the presumptive nominee. She doesn’t have to stay in the campaign to assure that.

And, given three tries at it, neither Hillary nor her advisors though it necessary, or even good sense, to rephrase her point about RFK’s assassination the way you suggest. Hmmmmm…

Lastly, you can tell a lot about how a candidate views his or her responsibility, not as a leader, but as the primary representative of the People’s Sovereignty. Hillary, like Bush and McCain, is always phrasing her statements about what “I” will do when President. Obama talks about what “we” will do as a nation. Its a small difference, but a telling one.

Its about time that the DLC neoliberals go the way of the Dixiecrats and the Scoop Jackson neocons and leave the party. We may not have power to win the next election, but, then, perhaps the Democratic party as currently constituted doesn’t deserve to win it. Maybe we need to hit bottom before we can cast off the neoliberal infection and return to progressive values.

And it should make anyone laugh who has an ounce of real knowledge.

Obama hasn’t made it through a single day in a week without either getting caught in a lie or screwing up so badly it’s making the news.

JFK? Hardly.

More like exactly who he is. An inexperienced politician out of his league.

Hillary did everything she could to mock and deride Obama’s positive message and forward-looking vision because she had no positive message or vision herself. It might be informative to note that Ted Sorenson, JFK’s closest advisor and speechwriter, has characterized Obama as having the same kind of idealism he saw in Kennedy. Something that Hillary fans would ridicule, the way an ignorant person ridicules intellect because he lacks it himself.

“The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind [scientology?]…

“It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him.”