Centerfield

The base and campaign workers have a pretty big capacity to overestimate how much the electorate cares about mistakes well in the past. Bush was well understood to have eeal substance use problems AND have gotten a pretty sweet deal in the Air Natl Guard, but he won two elections, Who didn't suspect Clinton did actually inhale?

Does anyone believe that a Republican opponent to Obama will ignore this information in the campaign? I credit Obama for admitting his youthful indiscretion but he better be ready to deal with this issue head on if he is the Democratic nominee. The Clinton campaign reference to this history will be subtle by comparison.

She apologized directly to Obama and many think she shouldn’t have let an influential NH advisor go with a dead heat in NH. Polls have actually given Hillary some credit. Obama shouldn't worry so much about what Hillary says, he should watch what he says (unless that’s just about what Hillary says). His top foreign affair advisors are Clinton imports. He tried to look hawkish a few times but still couldn't stop himself from spouting lines such as "Human Rights trumps national security" and "I would talk to our enemies", or call the fire department after an attack. When he looked like he was sinking, he shifted to the attack and broke his vow for a new kind of discourse. Yeah right. I caught some Oprah and hand me the barf bag. He went up by rallying the Left with cheap shots aimed at their least favorite candidate. The same force behind Edwards.

If smoking pot came up when Bill ran, Obama thinks he’ll get some free pass? He brings it upon himself when he goes to a high school and has little more to offer them than a recollection of his drug school daze and a "just say no". I think that was inappropriate, liberalism aside. Of course the Republicans will bring drugs up, not that it would influence me very much. Don't get me wrong, I applaud Obama in taking up his history, but I see other things about just as barfable coming from the Obama camp and don’t forget he had to confess at some point. The lines were out of the bag. Let's not make him St. Obama. He has lied several times during the debates to up Clinton while implying Hillary's a liar, Republican Lite and an insider sellout. His new kind of campaign died a while ago. The fact that one of Hillary's staff talked about Obama's drug history playing in the general election doesn't strike me as Obominable as his strategy to nomination. And Obama gave Clinton the stage for a firm apology. Still, Obama wants to play this out.

Put another way, consider this.

Clinton long ago suspected that Iraq might pan out and both Democrats (Biden, Kerry, Schumer, Lieberman, Kerry and Obama) and Republicans have been declaring since 2003 that Iran will not get a bomb. Thes Democrats also professed at some point, they did not want Iraq to be a senseless loss.

Iraq has turned a corner and has fallen back off the radar much to Pelosi's horror as she battles mindlessly for a timetable. And then comes the NIE which she rushes at first to hold up as an indictment of Bush. Maybe she then actually read it.

Two-thirds of Americans think Iran is still seeking a bomb and they need only read the headlines to see the effect the NIE is already having on the roll back of the very element the Report claims keeps Iran from going nuke. A similar percentage of Americans (including Democrats on both accounts) don't buy the NIE's omission of Iraq having nothing to do with Iran blinking, or Gaddaffi.

So Pelosi is faced with ranting about a war that has stabilized. She must hear media like CNN and the NYT offering muted support to the notion Iraq should be given some credit for halting the Iranian program. She must hear some even wondering whether the NIE effect on rolling back sanctions is a bad idea. But she has little idea. She lectured Murtha over his saying the surge is working. She has little opinion about Iran or even the spread of AQ to Algeria. She has no comment on the charge of Chavez trying to influence the Argentina election. Will she say it was a Bush dirty trick? Nope, she is in policy freefall.

By every measure, Hillary sides more with those who want Iraq to mean more than defeat. Unlke Obama, she offers a different direction than the slide witnessed by Bush numbers going up and Congress’ still going down. The public has backed off a bit on denouncing Bush over Iraq and the NIE will inevitably play to Bush’s hand after screwing up sanctions. (On a separate note, I think Bush is actually moving now in the wrong direction on Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Israel).

Clinton has consistently stood strong on sanctions against Iran including a tough position on genocide and terrorism. She has always been a hawk to Obama's Dove if we forget Obama's bombast on Pakistan and his former rantings about Iran. He wants to have it both ways with neither his dove position or hawk position making any sense. I think this intellectual BS is far more barfable than some high staffer’s remark. Even the cute line about cocaine abuse. Yes, not particular high-browed, but certainly nothing like Bush's campaign in 2000..LOL.

The Primary was supposed to be a vetting of policy differences. Obama pandered to the anti-war and their illogical theories while feeding the center some bones like invading Pakistan. The polls showed he lost that issue. Well, maybe he can win the charcter war and thinks drugs are never about character, or that the whole negative turn wasn’t his and Edwards doing. The only positive change came when Obama low-blowed Hillary over immigration. Immigration? Obama has repeatedly mischaracterized his own amendments to pander. How does he have the balls to say in a recent debate that he is for tough workplace enforcement of those that hire undocumented workers. He tried to add a bill to Amnesty killing the ID employers need to enforce the law. He climbed up on an issue he stumbled for an answer weeks later in the next debate. So he upped the innuendo as he listened to former Clinton advisors. His rise has been based on a personal spin of Clinton, not policy. The anti-war is making their final push. Consider that when one cries for Obama or wonders why the Republicans have actually shifted to wanting Obama as their competition. I wonder why? Hillary will be too hard to beat in the election as Iraq and Iran come into refocus. Unlike Obama and others, she has not capitulated or apologized. Without her, the Democrats will have no clothes. That plus the drug issue, makes Obama an even better target in what would probably be a polarizing defeat.

What I was saying in part

To back up what I was saying about the real struggle going on in the Democratic camp consider this:

1. Pelosi goes down bitching over Iraq spending.

2. Polls show that foreign policy worries top American list of important issues.

3. Iraq oil production tops Saddam's production.

4. Kurds in Iraq retreat from Independence grumblings but advocate a long stay for US troops.

5. Germany throws out Iranian diplomat for trying to buy nuclear technology suspected for dual use.

6. Musharraf lifts martial law and affirms nukes are under lock-proof control.

7. Europe is still livid over the self-defeating release of the questionable NIE report and declares sanction drive will continue.

8. AQ attacks in North Africa as Gaddafi seeks to buy French weapons instead of Russian weapons.

9. Chavez accused of trying to funnel money to Argentina to influence election as Bolivia faces autonomy drives by the four wealthiest regions.

10. Assad and Ahmadinejad use selective NIE readings to bollster their strategy.

These trends do not favor the Pelosi/Reid agenda heading into the election. Edwards and Obama who support much of this strategy went personal on Hillary months ago. The fight is not about drugs, lobbyists, donations (Obama just gave some money back) or personality. It is about clear differences in policy which anti-Clinton forces wish to avoid. If global trends continue, which candidate will have a better chance? If that is not clear, then perhaps one should think less about drugs and more about policy detail.

Obama truthful about his ambition to run for President?

Some more

If you go into a comparison with what Obama said 2000 - 2005 with recent campaign speeches you can see the flip flopping. Do a google on Obama/ Iraq, Iran, terrorism and national security.

I suggest also what Obama's amendment would have added to the amnesty bill while Obama spoke to the press about Republican sinking of the agreement to meet in the middle. Is this the kind of politics that ranks above the discussion of drugs or real negotiations with the opposition?

Also some in the anti-Clinton camp hail her comments that she always knew Iowa would be hard intentionally ignore she had written off the state and Illinois is a neighboring state. They cast her as lying. Obama's operatives have no part in this? She hadn't campaigned hard there until recently. So they attack her remarks as lying while Obama addresses the experiance issue today with the comment, "I have the experiance America needs now". Yep.