Centerfield

The problem is that you could swap Obama for Hillary in your post. Just edit some lines and bingo. The idea that Hillary has lost her hawkishness and you give a free pass to Obama is funny. While a case can be made that Hillary is more centrist than Obama, her need to jockey through the anti-war minefield is clear. I don't see McCain talking alot about immigration or taxes.

Obama had his wife go out and link "fairy tale" to insulting Barak the civl rights activist. While I recognized Obama was not lauding the policies of Reagan, without them and the context of America rejecting Carter and the Vietnam sydrome, one can't really explain hope and change al la Ronnie, can one?

Penn didn't circulate hysterical talking points about the racist Clintons. Obama has mocked Hillary's honesty, conviction and record for months now. Shall we review the tape? When Obama tosses Bill in with Nixon and goes after his wife's character, watch out. Clinton has strong coalitions and needs to be seen as tough and empathic. If Obama's gonna use the Republican talking points plus race, then let's see how he holds up against what Republicans will dish out. In the process people will grow tired of the same old claims againsst Hillary, while vet for the first time, the actuall speeches, votes and record Obama has compiled.

While you say Hillary will only move moderately to crack down on problems when the solution requires more force, you then hail Obama who has a record of "moving forward thoughtfully and moderately" Doesn't make sense. I want some arms getting twisted, barrels firing in the face of real crisis. Iraq improving Jon is a serious problem for Obama, not Hillary. Sanctions on Iran being led by France, not the US flies in Obama's face. Sharif's claim that Musharraf's submission to the US is killing Pakistan runs counter to Obama's take. Recession favors Hillary and Rubin, not Goldman Sacks and Obama.

And the irony is that Obama made it personal when he felt he was losing. He started calling Clinton a Republican Lite. The fighting however shows how ordinary his means rather than stick to the policies and anticipate the attacks coming on his record. Bickering helps Hillary as long as she delivers calm and fuzzy contrasts. The media and Obama play to sink Hillary and even play race makes me want her to kick ass even more. Not because she is so fantastic, but because anyone deflecting the moonbats, Mathews and and the Far right, can't be all that bad. Obama hasn't really fought for much in his short Washington history. He'll need far more than his ethics bill to turn Washington around.

Let the duel begin.

Max, your "Obama is doing all this stuff too" post is so letter perfect, because it just reinforces my impressions.

In my occasional intersections with both Obama and Clinton on the news and debates, they both seem pretty civil and collegial. (this in comparison to what I've seen in years of campaign watching...it's not very singular stuff...the blows are not nearly so low as ones from campaigns past) All the alleged misbehavior I've been reading about just doesn't seem to match what I am seeing.

Both sides seem to be complaining about the other side crossing the line, going out of bounds, yada yada yada. But it all seems like pretty tame, garden variety word twisting to me. I posted to this affect over at sideways mencken, and someone else chimed in that they were glad I said that, because they had been thinking it was just them.

As I'm always quick to concede, I may be a poor judge because I'm so difficult to offend, but I just don't see what everyone else is getting their panties all atwist about. They're politicians, and this is how they roll. I"ve built in my discount for this obvious fact, and so should everyone else. Basically, what it means is that you NEVER trust candidate A's account of what candidate B has said or done. Ever.

Warning: drunkblogging

I'm working on a post about guesses what'd happen in the not unlikely
case that one of them wins.

While you say Hillary will only move moderately to crack down on problems when the solution requires more force, you then hail Obama who has a record of "moving forward thoughtfully and moderately" Doesn't make sense.

No, it doesn't. Sorry - I posted worn out - I'd hoped to edit more and add more links, but it work out because the kid took the time and energy. That makes no sense. Here's what I meant to write:

I don't miss being in the Hillary column. The Clintons' solution to many things people saw as problems has been to crack down some more. Well, that only works in moderation, and we're well beyond moderation on privacy, collaboration with media industries' denial of Internet reality, and imprisoning people way too long. Obama's record has not been to roll back those problems, but he has been avoiding making them worse, and he's been making thoughtful suggestions on improving regulation of the new genetic testing labs.

It looks to me like neither campaign is in any danger of pleasing Miss Manners. I'm not seeing either campaign being long on politeness and respect.

Most of my post's not talking so about civility but the mechanisms of politics and trying to understand why the frontrunner is losing so many votes. I still am at a loss to understand why the veteran Clintons are doing these things after so many years of holding onto the lead with discipline.

Iraq improving Jon is a serious problem for Obama, not Hillary.

Maybe you'd better go read the link I referenced on her current Iraq policy. The difference has vanished. Hillary is now also promising to get out presto and saying the Surge has failed (sound familiar?).

If she's just going to follow Obama's lead in this, how is she the better choice as a leader?

I wrote that last as a rhetorical question, but I AM interested in what other people have to say about her new Iraq policy.

Obama hasn't really fought for much in his short Washington history.

More, IMHO, than, say, Thompson. He was in the IL lege awhile. There are articles on het subject - I encourage you to look it up.

Don't wear out too much Jon. Lack of sleep kills.

Obama surrogates are comparing the Clintons to Lee Atwater, while Slate tries to rewrite history to say blacks did not gain all during the Clinton years. Many Republicans are eager for a chance at Obama while CNN and others mischaracterize Bill's interviews. The Far Left cannot be distinguished from Republican Clinton haters and the truth comes out.

Here is another brillant take..

"Clyburn said he doesn't really see Obama as the "black candidate" polls are making him out to be. If anything, Clyburn argued, Obama is the white candidate.

He pointed to outcome in Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa, where he said "if you count up all the votes ... you're going to see that Obama has gotten nine or ten times more white votes than black votes."

Clyburn predicted the Democratic primary on Saturday will be "a lot tighter" than the polls suggest, some of which have Obama leading Clinton by as much as 17 percentage points.

So is this a hint that Clyburn won't be voting for Obama? He'll only admit that he's not undecided. "I'm an undeclared voter," Clyburn said. "I have not even told me wife who I'm supporting." CNN

Is there something odd here? Every jab at Obama's record, statements, votes etc. are met with horror at the "evil" Clinton machine. Bloggers talk about feeling sorry for poor Obama while Obama unleashes his new forward thinking slogan of No Bush No Cheney No Sense. Nonsense.....

I ask every serious thinker here to read Obama's recent speech to AIPAC. Read his speeches from 2004 as he rose from his mentor Lieberman. Look closely at his voting record, his claimed support of vets and his recent comments on Iranian sanctions as France leads the push for new ones.

Obama has more than just swung Left of Hillary because she was blocking his centrist way. He has pandered to the Left while claiming he would unite the country. His campaign tactics have created one of the worst implosions in Democratic primaries which his campaign is declaring the Clintons are causing it. He is in the middle of race cards, blame games, contradictory remarks and policies, pandering and a love fest with a fickled and Leftish media. He wants me to believe this was a Clinton conspiracy as he uses Republican tactics and Leftist ones on Clinton? Hell no...

The record is very clear. Obama started the personal attacks and called Hillary a Republican lite. Taking off his gloves meant to question the Clinton's character, not policies save Iraq because that was the Left's most important issue. Please don't forget that as Hillary refused to stand down.

Obama changed his positon on immigration enforcement long after introducing a bill during amnesty that would prevent employers from verifying employee status. He refuted the wisdom of his present advisor Clarke on Real IDs.

Obama will not talk about abortion, or Iran, or Iraq. He will not do anything to shake up his Left base except give a vague talk about Reagan to woo Reagan Democrats. Why are Republicans pulling for Obama? Well think about it. He deflects valid criticism with indignant claims of trash talking. The candidate of unity and bipartisnship will enter the general election if nominated as one of the most devisive and unvetted candidates in quite a long time. The republicans will chew him up.

I heard one Liberal pundit comparing Hillary to Wallace. Yes, the Democrats eat there own and an Obama would be a stunning lost to the Democrats and blacks in a general election.

So I would be very smart when understanding the politics today. Liberal media wants a fight. Obama wants to float above vetting and issues. Beyond the flaws, the Clintons are fighting for a move towards center. Obama has said nothing of what he would do on day one but pull out of Iraq. Today as his surrogates compare the Clintons to Wallace, Atwater, Republicans etc. while chanting No Bush, No Cheney, No sense, the idea that Obama will unite goes unsupported. He even told reporters his supporters might not support Hillary should she win. Yep, straight from the mouth of the great uniter.

Take it easy dude. Relax. I know about the link to Iraq, but her triangulating on an issue we all know she is more of a hawk on suggests the nasty fight she is in. Bubba is being trashed by the very media that supported him for eight years. He has fought the worst of the left, the right and himself. I empathize with him more than Obama, who has little for me, but make the Democrats weaker already in November. I do not believe Hillary wants those who have died in Iraq to have died in vain. Saying that now might tip this primary against her and I blame Obama for not having the courage to admit some progress has been made in Iraq and Human Rights means more sanctions on Iran. For the wonks out there consider this: Russia has declare their doctrine of first nuclear use against conventional threats. Western governments are now demanding NATO do the same. France is leading the push against Iran while NATO is debating missile defense, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. OBAMA is the head of a Senate Foreign Relations Sub Committee on Eastern Europe and NATO. Yet he has said nothing regarding any of these developments. In fact, he hasn't held a single meeting in three years. Is this how to lead? Is this the confidence Reagan breathed into his rhetoric of hope and change? Think about that as Obama spins intellectual and wonkish. Wonk what? His spin on Iraq is far worse, as is Edward's. Clinton has a history of bringing Republicans together with Democrats in Congress. Bill was a great assimilator which the NEO Left hates. Obama has sported a "heavenly message" while playing cards that have caused warfare between the older guard and the New Left. Take your pick, but I'm not about to rewrite history, trash the Clintons into darkness, hope that Obama can restore the leadership he has not shown himself or a vison he has not revealed in policy or behavior. Media loves him as does the pundits. Doesn't that tell you something?

Now I'm going to have a beer too. I'll email you my new business link. Don't mind me I'm pissed....