Hillary to Obama: You're a naive little boy; one might say a naughty boy; people from my home state (Arkansa) might even say a nasty boy!

Obama to Hillary: Please don't say that, mama!

Obama needed to strike back much harder back when she called him naive. His response was rational, to-the-point and way too polite. He missed his golden opportunity to trash the garbage.

**********************************************
DIDN'T HE SAY THE SAME THING A MONTH AGO?
**********************************************

Barack Obama -- Blah Blah Blah

What a terrible candidate he is. He seems like a great guy, and I agree with most of his positions. But he has no idea how to take on his challengers, both on the left and the right. He's been soft on Hillary, obviously; and when the right attacks him, he does nothing. FOX lied and said he went to a madrasa, and what did he do? He boycotted FOX. That sounds great and all, but you can't win an election doing that. You have to set the record straight.

The irony is that he's the "net roots" blogger-favored candidate, but he's so horribly unsavvy when it comes to using/manipulating the media to his advantage.

I haven't committed to any of these Democratic candidates yet, but Obama's Pauline conversion, gospel tours and inclusion of this fundamentalist hate monger in his campaign has put him at the bottom of my list.

Support Edwards. Obama has lost his way on the road to the Presidency. Maybe in 8 years he'll figure out what needs to be done to win.

Who cares what the gays want.This election is not about them,it's about the mess that the United States is in.I'm glad that Obama didn't cave in to the gays,sometimes you have to stand your ground and not give in to all these interest groups.So gays if you don't like him don't vote for him.There are still alot of people out here who will vote for him.

Osama's (or anyone's) only chance is to convince enough Americans that Bush 1, followed by Clinton 1, followed by Bush 2, theb Clinton 2 is not a functioning democracy, but a plutocracy, and not what the founders intended.

Save Democracy - vote against the ruling families.

sorry Hillary,here are two votes,you won't get(not that it matters in these rigged games)
I realize you got to suck up to the Zionist warmonger pigs,to be "elected".
My hope is,if you go to the white house,you clean house in our zionist-infested Gov.and remove every executive order,the present lackey signed.

If the headline is true, this is the reason that OBAMA is NOT QUALIFIED to be president.

Of course, I will NEVER vote for Billary either.

Raiser YOUR STANDARDS, BE INDEPENDENT.

The worst trait Obama showed in this McClurkin Hate Fest (with tamborines,)is when a uber religious incompetant on his staff, makes a mistake, nobody apologises, and no one gets fired....why does that sound so familar?

Obama may have traded what he (and his not-for-prime-time staff) thought was the smaller gay community for the larger evangelicals. However, he (and the incompetent staff) miscounted. The smaller gay community is supported by parents, siblings, family, friends, classmates, co-workers, and so on. I would wager those numbers add up to a considerable backlash against Obama.

Sorry to break the news but sadly America is not ready to elect a women or a black man to the oval office.Edwards and maybe Biden are the only electable candidates.
The Democrats are ready to give the cons the big house for another 8 years.
Their incompetence is stunning!

Some advice to Obahma from a former Democrat:

Dear Obama.
I would hammer home the fact that Hillary Clinton is a war monger; voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq and more recently Iran.

In addition, and this will take some backbone, I would call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their crimes. If congress doesn't have the courage to offer article of impeachment, I would see to it that a speical people's court does. This extraordinary action would be justified by the special nature of their crimes. If you need me to list them, then you have no business asking to be President.

hrc 'surge' coincidence? hrc 'surged' in isreal shortly before 'surging' in the US, after unveiling her giuliani-like ME policy.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=914892
A new phase in the race: Clinton is now second

Hillary Clinton's sudden rise to second place in the monthly ranking deserves explanation. Alas, this explanation must involve some transparency on our side. Clinton was always second, or a fairly close third, in the eyes of some members of the panel. The difference of this month reflects a change of heart for a very few panelists, especially one who ranked her very low so far and has decided to upgrade her marks dramatically.

I can't say who this panelist is, but I can and will give you his reasoning. I called him as soon as I got his updated numbers, thinking there must have been a mistake. But no - he really meant to give her credit that he didn't find appropriate in the past. He was happy with her vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terror organization (many Democratic activists weren't happy with it, as I mentioned earlier in the week in the What To Read section).

He was also impressed with her Israel agenda that was released a couple of weeks ago.

Three New Yorkers at the top - a Republican (Giuliani is still king, and this doesn't show any signs of changing), a Democrat, and an Independent who isn't even running yet. Giuliani and Clinton, who are leading the general polls, are also the leaders of the "Good for Israel" ranking.

Or maybe it is the other way around: candidates that seem best for America in the voters' eyes are also those who tend to express views that seem to be best for Israel?

one can make a credible argument by saying that the views expressed by Giuliani and Clinton regarding Israel in many ways match their views on other, more significant issues of this election cycle.

If this is the case, it can't get any better than that as far as Israel is concerned.

People are still in "the devil they know rather don't know" mood. They are using hope versus true optimism in selecting a presidential candidate. Translated: The Republicans have messed things up, but there is no palpable direction absorbed by the public from the Democratic side and just hope, based on an almost religious sense, that they will do a good job for the electorate. The media doesn't help since they do not highlight substance or what experience or temperament it will take for a president to address issues that face us.

It is also our fault because we just get mad and again hope, based on little evidence, that the process will play out properly. It is this voter's view that progress will not happen from the sidelines. Whether it was the ending of slavery, women's rights, etc it was social activism, getting of your duff, that eventually brought about needed change.

I am supporting and participating in Governor Bill Richardson's campaign based on his record, his background, and having personally heard him speak. His credentials are solid and his accomplishments are significant. Now there's someone to push from nebulous hope for change to the more optimistic view of enlightened leadership.

I give a special recognition to Desmond Tutu who recently opened my eyes to this distinction between hope and optimism. Last Friday's Boston Globe ran his thoughts on this subject and is a good read.