Obama Sharpens Critique Of Clinton, Warns Of "Divisive" Politics

Did you say Madam Chiang Kai Shiek? Yes, you are correct, with all her connections to the Chinese fundraisers, yes she will be Madam President of the Chinese- American Fund-raising Society.

I'll see you at Obama's inauguration, Jan.'09

"Without mentioning Clinton by name, Obama struck back hard at that argument."

All this arguing back and forth BS is largely manufactured. He was describing that he does have experience, just not Washington experience, but that isn't all its cracked up to be. The media all wants this to be negative, so they'll paint it any way they like, and like good sheep, we eat it up. Liking one candidate does not have to mean hating all others.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and i saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So i ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of god!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"

I said, "DIE, HERETIC SCUM!", and I pushed him off.

... Emo Phillips

In my view, the message of this apocryphal bit of satire also applies to the Democratic presidential contenders: there are differences, but what they have in common is far, far more extensive.

Sure, I prefer Obama over the others, but as a Democrat, I believe we"d be well-served as a nation by ANY of the top 5 (Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, or Biden). Hell, even crazy-man Kucinich on his worst day would be better than the best Rethuglican on his best day.

So let the campaigning be vigorous, but don"t let it become a blood sport.

We'll see if the majority of Americans believe in their Constitution; particularly the part about: "All men are created equal..." if we're not just a bunch of hypocrites, we'll vote for the best leader. Not the most experienced, or Biden would be a shoe-in. Obama, as many here have said, is exactly what this country needs to maek up alot fo lost ground. FOREIGN POLICY. The massive deficit. Racial/class conflicts. Educational deficits...You name it, we need it fixed. And the nexr prez MUST be someone with the judgement to surround themselves with a strong team of leaders/advisors. A leader that listnes to reason. Etc, etc...Edwards would make a better VP. It appears that Mrs Edwards wears the pants...Then what would happen if sehe succumbed, or becaem to ill to speak up for a husband?

Let's not blow this opportunity to elect the real change agent.

What a joke Obama is...he talks about divisive politics...and then practices it against Hillary Clinton! Is Karl Rove working for Barack Hussein Obama, Or what??? You can't have it BOTH ways, Barack!!!!

Its sad when Democrats base their vote on the fact that they think minority Dems cant get elected president. Darn it, that Deval Patrick. He was probably told that he couldn't win by other democrats too. Boy were they right. Seriously, AA's are solidly Democratic and the most loyal set of voters. It saddens me that so called progressive people here are saying people like me can't get a chance to lead our country by members of our own party. Why don't you vote Republican?

Obama's speech was incredible. The media always spins what any candidate says. You really have to listen for yourself instead of allowing someone to tell you what was said. Speaking of spin...Rupert Murdock, the ultra republican neocon, is all for Hillary. He even held a fundraiser for her. As owner of several major media outlets (including Fox News), Murdock carefully controls what information we are allowed to hear. No wonder the spin seems to favor Hillary so strongly.
Obama has my vote. He speaks with sincerity. He has the kind of experience I want in my next president and he has the wisdom and good judgement to lead. In fact, he is a natural born leader. And I like the direction he wants to take this country.
Obama '08

I'm not attacking Obama. It's just that in today's reality, John Edwards has a more cohesive and comprehensive message than Obama. The reality is Edwards is more likely to get elected than either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. That's what counts, isn't it? To save our representative democracy from these filthy republicons?

I think Obama would make a great VP (holding a place in line for 2016) or HHS or many other posts.

Oh, "BTW" obama 2008, there's more to a strike against a target than 'having them in (his) sites twice'. There are considerations on the ground and complexities that make an apples to apples comparison impossible.

I guess that's where the ivy league education comes into play.

IF anyone considers Obama's speech "divisive", then we need alot more divisiveness to reunite America. Drawing distinctions between yourself and the competition is both appropos, and necessary to give voters the clearest possible reasons to vote for the coandidate that best fits their values and vision for the country. What the hell is divisive about that? IT's another example of common-sense politics.

Apparently none of the people attacking Obama here even bothered to watch the speech. It's on youtube and on C-Span's website. I'd like to encourage you to watch it, then decide whether he was being divisive or not. This article here does not do his speech justice...there was nothing negative or divisive about his speech.

Enough Clinton Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush.

There's still JEB and Chelsea, for GOD'S SAKE!!!

Now, Jenna is going to breed?????? GOD HELP US.

He does have a place in today's politics. He has a good message.

Trouble is: politics is hardball, and I don't mean that putz Matthews.

Obama2008 makes my point clearly: "whitewater" - not a FUCKING thing came out of that. "vince foster" - not a FUCKING thing came out of that because some guy offed himself in a park. "failed healthcare reform" - the Clinton's were ahead of their time, as usual. The country wasn't ready for what was then, the impending implosion of the healthcare situation. "pre 9/11 planning" - the transition to the bush league included a COMPREHENSIVE assessment of Al Qaeda and how the bush league should concentrate on it. NOTHING was done until we were HIT ON THEIR WATCH.

The rest of his response is equally as droll.

In short: JOHN EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT.

I watched this speech on C Span today and it was anything but divisive. It was motivational, inspirational, hopeful. I really think that all media needs to be more careful with headlines and soundbites that mislead. Watch the speech and make your own determination. Don't jump to a conclusion with a headline. There is too much at stake in this election to let any media source influence your decision.

Division is precisely what we need *more* of in our politics! Instead of having two parties both representing the wealthy business owners and managers of the USA (and its trading partners). Instead of having two war parties vying to see how much of our resources they can squander on Pentagon boondoggles and optional wars.

Are we to interpret any criticism of anyone as "divisive"?

Are we going to keep pretending there aren't opposing interests in this country? Are voters that stupid? There is a class war going on here. The rich are winning, hands down. The militarists and the jailers are winning, hands down.

Oh well we'll hear Obama bashing and dumping on Hillary more and more as his numbers sink lower. I don't understand why, since the republicans are doing hit jobs on all the democrats, the democrats don't concentrate on the republicans instead of each other. Doesn't make a lick of sense.