...truly, as far as Obama's supporters in this Primary are concerned.

All one has to do is go over to DKos and say one factual thing that, in the slightest (even most obtuse) way possible, might be perceived as something negative about Obama's campaign, now or in the GE, and the floodgates open up.

This sentiment has gotten more pervasive around here in recent weeks, too; and, without a doubt, IMHO, it is the most myopic and senseless tack a pragmatic Democrat can take this year.

As the saying goes: "Keep on doing what you're doing, and you'll keep on getting what you got." (Four more years of GOP rule.)

There are many major vulnerabilities in Obama's candidacy. Making light of them now does every Dem a disservice.

And, make no mistake about it, I will support the guy wholeheartedly if he wins he nomination. But, until then, disaffecting Hillary's supporters is one of the very most self-destructive things a Dem can do this year.

I'm just sayin' diarist....

Elitist is as common a way for GOP to defeat Democrats as gay this or gay that. They used it successfully against Dukakis and Kerry. Obama just handed them that on a silver platter. McCain is going to use it over and over and over. It's not about what Hilary will do.

Yeah and those pictures they keep running over and over again of Obama feeding calves with milk bottles, and bowling in his suit and tie trying to fit in with the bitter gunners, and religious clingers, and the immigrant rejectors because they seem so different.  I mean those videos and pictures keep showing how uncomfortable he is in back woods settings. How many times are we going to have to see that. They show that film and those pictures over and over again to the point that I can't close my eyes to sleep without seeing them.  And then I see all those lofty thinking millionaire sanfranciscoins sitting there with their mouths hanging open in disbelief because they didn't know how Obama was going to handle the whole situation with those poor souls being ignored all the time by the govt. and all.  That keeps playing over and over and over again in my mind until I had to take some sleeping pills to help me get some rest before next Tuesday when I am gunna take my gun and go cutting through the churchyard cemetary to the voting booth to vote for Hillary.

I don't need to hear more.  Please Alegre don't write about it.  It is hard to read, I bet especially for the Obama supporters who don't like anykind of repitition and are always searching for hope and change.  To see them suffer so hurts my bleeding liberal heart.

As I felt it was appropriate.

Because we are all concerned Dems.  This has been instructional for Obama (at least I hope it has been) because he really has to learn how to phrase his political thoughts so as not to alienate any demographic if he is to be the Dem. nominee.  He has put his foot in his mouth on numerous occasions, setting himself up for criticism.  Hillary has made mistakes in her public comments, too.  But I think this primary process overall is helping our candidates refine how they express their comments about what is going on in our country.  We need to hold both of their feet to the fire so they come out stronger during the run up against the Repubs. in the GE.

I am more inclined to think that sniperGate, Penn-ColumbiaGate, Salary from Cayman-Islands-CorporationGate, and "Threshold of Commander in Chief"Gate, all have greater legs.

Don't worry at all. In three primaries Senator Obama is doing fine. This will soon be over so relax. Thank you for your sincere post.

I would posit that if people are taking the time to diaries specifically addressing Alegre's posts, then Alegre is clearly getting under someone's skin.  Usually, people are most disturbed by information that contains some modicum of truth.  I can only conclude, with my limited grasp of sociology & psychology, that continued reference to Barack Obama's explosive comments on small-town America is stimulating a major insecurity with his supporters.  

You ain't seen nothing yet. Hillary has nothing to lose. Tomorrow at the debate she'll open up another couple of fronts. Probably not Rezco but calling Obama out for his misleading purity on the lobbyist issue, lying direct mail, lack of ANY accomplishments in the Senate, lack of participation in anything bipartisan, anti-Israel foreign policy advisors, whatever.

He brought this on himself. For months he's been running a sub-rosa campaign to discredit Hillary - and it has succeeded. It's payback time for Hillary. My prediction (and you heard it here first) for the election:

Hillary's negatives are too high to win the general election. Obama will have shown that he is incapable of winning over the voters needed to succeed in the general election (midwest, Hispanic, lower socioeconomic status). Superdelegates will recognize this and react by abstaining on the first ballot at the convention. Someone will, on the second ballot, nominate a candidate who can win the election. That candidate will be John (I won't accept Vice President) Edwards. Furious deal-making will ensue, ballots will be taken, and an Edwards-Foreign policy guy ticket will eventually be nominated. Possible choices for Foreign policy guy may be Jim Webb (southerner), Bob Graham (Florida) and Sam Nunn. My choice would be Graham.

One other possibility which cannot be overlooked is Brian Schweitzer (gov of Montana) with Foreign policy guy. I'll probably write a diary about this tomorrow.