Americans need the truth.

Obama has been allowed to skate by saying he is different.  His cheerleaders in the national media has trumpted how different he is.  He is not.

CLinton didn't make him vote to fund the war.

Clinton didn't make him vote against capping c.c. interest.

Clinton didn't make him take money from Rezko or write letters on the mans behalf.

Clinton didn't make him invest in Skyterra.

Clinton didn't make him hire lobbyist to help run his campaign.

Clinton didn't make him heart Ronnie Reagan and the Republicans.

Clinton didn't make him flip flop in heath care.

Obama has done all these things and more and they just simply prove that he is not different.  His shiite stinks like everyone elses.

I think given the false hype he enjoyed is important to get across.

to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

There's some truth to this.  It's an extremely cynical strategy.  But ultimately, his theme is representing a different kind of politics, and it's a fair answer to argue that he represents the same kind of politics.

It is only the political afficianados who worry about fine policy print in this election. The vast majority of voters make their decisions based on much more primal concerns. From the color of a candidates skin, to their gender, their physical attractiveness, the sound of their voice, etc. There is so much waffling by candidates on any given issue, and so much denial of that waffling, followed by claims of "misrepresentation" the track is just too difficult and time consuming for most to follow.

Based on the last debate, however, Obama has two very serious "gut" issues to deal with. First that he may be corrupt, based on the Rezko allegations, and secondly that he is flat out stupid, based on his fuzzy, meandering, debate performance. I was watching it with several people who are casual political observers and hadn't seen a previous debate. They were all shaking their heads over Obama's stuttering, hesitant, and ultimately nonsensical, answers.

"The blurring goes on and on..."

It certainly does. In this instance, the blurring is between where the money comes from, and the stance on the war in Iraq. "Mr. Clean" Obama has raised a ton of money on Wall Street. This is a well-reported fact that, somehow, didn't make it into your post. Why is that?

As for Iraq, "Mr. Anti-War" Obama has been a US Senator for 3 years now, and what, exactly, has he done to end US involvement? Um. . . that would be a big, fat NOTHING. Where was he when Kyl-Lieberman was being voted on? Hiding? Or did he lose his papers on that one?

So, before he was a Senator, he gave a speech against the war. BFD. Talk is cheap. All Obama does is give speeches. Maybe he should be running for Toastmaster General.

Bravo, couldn't have said it better myself. Other folks on here seem to be saying that your argument doesn't hold water since Obama argues for a "different kind of politics." But the only people who could possibly buy that are those who haven't listened to him and don't understand what he means by "a different kind of politics." These are the same people who mistakenly see him as an insubstantial candidate with vague policy ideas. Obama's "different politics" have to do with using an inclusive tone and trying your best to represent all Americans, not just the people who voted for you. It's not about being above politics, or incapable of making mistakes, or being some kind of messiah figure.

The point she made is that (whether it is the greatest lobbying reform in 30 years or not) in fact it's a minor accomplishment. Here is what she said to Tim Russert:

When Senator Obama was asked, what is your major accomplishment in the Senate, he said it was passing ethics reform and getting legislators to be prohibited from having lunch with lobbyists. And then, you know, Charlie Gibson said, "Well, wait a minute. You can have lunch if you're standing up, not if you're sitting down." So if that's his main claim for legislative accomplishment, people deserve to know that.

It's strange when the truth gets taken hostage by my candidate-ism. I assume the Dkos writer is a major believer in campaign/lobbying reform, and that's great, but let's set our reform sights much higher than no free lunch!

This whole lobbyist thing is such a bunch of bull. Less than 1% of Clinton's fundraising has come from federal lobbyists.

Obama is taking money from exactly the same federal lobbying firms. He's just making the partners "de-register" before donating. Or getting their wives to donate or whatever.

Edwards #1 moneyman, the guy who loaned Edwards his corporate airplane for the last year, was the head of the trial lawyers lobby association in Washington. Hundreds of federal lobbyists worked for him. It's a technicality that he himself was not registered as a lobbyist.

the next Presidential term. It's not about getting in a time machine and traveling back to 2002; i.e., the point you make below is funny!

Her position that you're not really against the war if you have ever voted to fund the troops is almost funny

You're against the war/occupation if you vote against funding it. You're for the war/occupation if you vote for funding it, as both Hillary and Obama have consistently done. What is painfully not funny is that Iraqis and Americans continue to die, along America's future, in the sands of Iraq. All the Senators who vote for funding bills are equally responsible for that.

The demagoguery of the Clintons has become legend this campaign.  They will trash anyone and take money from anyone (Monsanto, Murdoch) and then obfuscate to a precision that makes Rove proud.  

The Clinton people here will react exactly as the Clintons - they will attack you, they will attack Obama - but they won't answer the question about why she is taking so much money and how that has influenced her voting.  

I am praying for an Obama win.  

I made a promise some months ago to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee regardless of who it was.  As time, debates, slanders, and falsehoods continue to line up against the Democratic primaries, my resolve to stick to my promise diminishes  exponentially.  

Right at this moment I feel that if we as Democrats are too f'ing stupid to realize who the true Progressive candidate is, if we are too f'ing stupid to believe that HRC can do anything other than win the primaries and then lose the General by uniting  the fractured Republicans against us, then we deserve what we get.

I really hope you enjoy the next fours years of McCain and Republican control of the White House.  You reap what you sew, welcome back to the politics of smoke filled back rooms with no progress on the issues that are destroying our nation.

JRE is the ONLY real candidate who can change the  course of our nation, either as President or as Attorney General in an Obama White House. Elect Hillary as our nominee and kiss your @ss good bye because it will be the end of the democratic party as we know it.

You're missing the point. This is about Obama. This is about his hypocrisy. This is not about Clinton. Everyone knows about the Clinton. We know nothing about Obama and it is troubling to me that many people take his words as 100% truth despite the evidence.

No politician ever does. I think that there has been a misunderstanding of Obama's message, too. A lot of discussion has come of his statement that we need a "different kind of politics". It seems most people think that this means that there is no negative campaigning, no fighting spirit, in general, no traditional campaign.

But that is not what "a different kind of politics" means. It means grassroots activism, change from the   bottom up, a return to the sense of community that this nation once had. That's what Obama stands for, people having control over their government again, affecting real change. It is a populism not based in the traditional fire-breathing style of Edwards, but a new populism based in the idea of a culture of unity and an attitude of hope upon which that populism can thrive. That is the "different kind of politics" that Obama represents and fights for.

Is anyone really surprised that Hillary's claim to be ready on day one probably refers to her intention to hit up her corporate and lobbyist cronies as early as January 20, 2009 to finance a campaign for a second term as President?

Dodd as Majority leader in the Senate and Edwards as President! Imagine what they could do together!?

We need to put our collective knee on the neck of the right wing machine and tell them FU! We have work to get done! We have a Constitution to restore! So you can just sit back, shut the F up and watch how it is supposed to be done for We The People! You bunch of cocksuckers!

sorry... the telecom/reid story at Dkos made me channel Jimmy Carter from the Onion.   :)

Progressive Blue

This diary is a little bit loose with the truth in one respect that I want to point out.

According to the diary, Hillary is going around mocking "the most comprehensive lobbying reform in more than thirty years."

However, Hillary has said nothing to mock the ethics reform bill passed by the Democratic Congress.  What she has mocked is Obama's debate answer where he boasted that "I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals for members of Congress."  She is arguing that Obama's meal amendment is rather trivial compared to her record of accomplishment, children's health insurance and all that.

Obama, of course, cannot take credit for the Democratic ethics reform bill because, while he and Sen. Feingold proposed an excellent bill, that bill went nowhere and it was Harry Reid's watered-down version that ended up passing.

Obama has been excellent on the issue of ethics reform, there's no question about that.  But let's not get all hyped up about how Hillary supposedly bashed the Democratic ethics reform bill, when she was mocking only Obama's relatively minor contribution to that bill that he boasted of at the NH debate.

Most Americans don't want to hear about policy details, they want to hear about hope and optimism.  There is a difference b/t a campaign strategy and how you would govern.  

Hillary hardly has any unique ideas and has had strikingly little success actually implementing anything, so her fighting must not work.

Seriously, name some of her policy ideas that aren't basically similar to those of Edwards or Obama.

Why does it seem that every hillary supporter is angry and a bully?  I am a life-long 4th generation democrat and never have I seen an angrier group of supporters for 1 candidate.  I support John Edwards because I believe in his progressive message and feel both the other candidates fall short.

I have always been a Hillary supporter and frankly thought I would be voting for her in the primary.  Unfortunately, her views on some things, the leargest being NAFTA leaves me no choice but to support someone else.  She panders to to the American public or slanders her competition by twisting the facts.  I think Hillary would have been the best candidate to run in 2004, but for political reasons elected not to.  

Barack Obama on the other hand seems like a much more genuine candidate and someone I can trust a lot more then Hillary.  The problem with Barack is, he is 8 years before his time.  He also has a very conservative economic policy and caters to Wall street much like hillary.  I think between Barack and Hillary, Barack would clearly have a better chance of winning back the presidency from the Republicans in Nov.

John Edwards on the other hand is by far the best candidate for America.  He is a wealthy man (helping to protect the less fortunate), that never lost site of protecting American workers, their rights, and most importantly, their jobs.  He stands up to corporate lobbyist and PACs and even took Federal money as not to be a hypocrite.   In my opinion, he is the leader of the progressive movement in this country and is willing to fight for all of us.  He is the best candidate to run in a general, but probably wont get the chance.  

If Hillary and Bill Clinton attacked John Edwards like they are Barack Obama, I personally would never forgive them.  This is going to be a huge issue come Novemeber, as Barack Obama supporters do not seem like a fly-by-night kind of group.  I have a terrible feeling as a democrat that the Clinton Machine may just destroy the Democratic party as we know it.  

One has to ask themself, what's more important to the candidates, their party and the people they support or themselves?

which I shouldn't give you, since we don't share a favorite candidate, and you're a good writer.

Argue FOR your candidate. You've got a frontpage slot to do so once a week. Use it!

Maybe the Dems haven't been out of power long enough, judging from the tone of this thread (Yes I also like music) Sounds like we're not hungry enough to want to be back in power- we'd rather trash each other- and with a surprising edge of moral superiority in the comments. We just love to talk trash- I'm not a great fan of CA A.G. Jerry Brown, but he did get almost 5 million votes in '06 and beat his GOP opponent by over 1.5 million votes(at the same time Arnold was winning big)- so I don't think a Georgia Dem should be talking trash here about him or the writer who cited him.. Look- both Senators Clinton and Obama are pretty much corporate Dems- as are a majority of our Senate Dems. Sen. Edwards comes from the trial lawyers-by dint of that he's less corporate and more willing to help workers organize against corporate power though the other 2 have helped a fair amount on that point as well. But one of them is going to be the nominee and there's less persuasion on here than just trashing and that should stop,

You put yourself so high on a pedestal apparently no one else is on be prepared to be called on it when you don't live up to those standards. Ultimately Obama is a politician every bit as much as Clinton is. She is calling him out on it and rightly so.

I'm all for putting vigorous and effective laws with real teeth on the books to clean up campaign financing.  It's a real problem that hurts our politics badly, and something needs to be done.

What I'm not into is asking our Democratic candidates to unilaterally disarm when no such laws exist.  I don't want my candidate to turn down lobbyist money.  Bottom line: money is money, and it all spends the same.  

You can use a pharmaceutical giant's money to get elected and enact a progressive agenda just as well as you can take Granny's wrinkled $5 bills to do the same thing.  I want my Democrats out there taking all the campaign money it's legal to take, just like the Republicans will.

Unilateral disarmament can backfire and elect Republicans who will make the financing laws worse, not to mention more Supreme Court justices who will rule that spending money is free speech.

Au contraire.

This story had to be told and it was. I congratulate the diarist for his clear exposition of what a Hillary presidency would be: more of the same.

Obama's political godfather left people in unheated Chicago housing, in the middle of winter, with Obama knowing Rezko was a slumlord.

That line is a little more blurred with the Clintons.

Secondly, it does raise the question of money laundering, making illegal contributions of taxpayer monies, to Obama, say, obtaining the money under false pretense, telling the federal government you were going to use that cash to provide low income housing, but instead using it to finance certain political candidates, who then sell themselves as pure, the people's candidate, while knowingly leaving the poor to freeze in a Chicago winter.

If I were a republican, that's how I would sell it.