His day in the sun is almost over.  By the end of February he'll be back in the Senate.  

He can run again someday down the road.  But I think he may choose not to.   I think he took a calculated game this time and it almost paid off.  He decided to run, while light on experience, but with a small resume and record that he could be defined with.

Gone next time will be the talk of hope and all that bs.  He will have a record to explain and he will have to deliver on substance.

This is what busts me up. When Obama made the comment about Reagan being a transformative figure, a significant percentage of media members trumpeted it as the truth, regardless of how it played in Democratic primaries. Then when Bill Clinton mentions Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, implying the primary demographics tilt in that direction, I've heard many of the same pundits lash out at Clinton. So which way do they want it? LOL. Truth or dainty avoidance? I guess it depends on whether it makes the Clintons look bad.

I've got to believe this is somewhat like John Kerry's comment a couple of weeks before the '06 midterm. The media played the edited clip which included only the "stuck in Iraq" segment. When the preceding section was included it was obvious Kerry was referring to Bush's ignorance.

Bill Clinton had been on the hot seat for days. I severely doubt he tossed the Jesse Jackson comment out there without some type of relevant lead in. He's been called the sharpest politician of this era for a reason, so my handicapping is to provide the benefit of a doubt in his direction, not the media's. A transcript is not enough. We need the full tape, to evaluate the course and tone of the conversation.  

Let's see:

a) Obama told Jackson something that Clinton said about Jackson
b) Clinton's comment couldn't possibly be taken as being insulting
c) he did so in a private conversation, not trying to make a spectacle of it

Therefore Obama's strategy is to whine?

You're trying to make an issue out of nothing at all and use it as an excuse to attack a democrat. So who's trying to divide the party here?

All along he's acted like a child, so why should this time be any different?  I had the same thought myself when I read it- crybaby runs to others asking what to do.

Jesse's statement was pure class, especially considering this isn't the first time Bill has used him as a bit of a foil on the campaign trail.

Jesse seems to be one of the few people who understands that there's no point in exacerbating differences within the party and making a big production out of every little non-issue.

And I said to Barack, as a tactical matter, resist any temptation to come down to that level.

I agree. Obama should resist the urge to sink to the Clintons level. I know it must be hard when you're being hit by relentlessly dishonest and negative attacks, but JJ is still correct.

and honestly, I am sick and tired of being called a racist for supporting Hillary.  Silly me, I care about experience and results instead of flowery rhetoric.  

Looks like I made it to the rec list with my very first diary here. Thanks everyone!

Whining?! You're kidding right?

The question was "What does it say that it takes two people to campaign against Obama?"

ANd Bill's answer was "Jesse Jackson won here too, you know."

Uh-huh. That answer has everything to do with the double team by the Clintons. Full-disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter.

But even so, how can you NOT see what Bill was trying to do there, because to not see it, you have to be wearing blinders.