well he was always gonna say that. its like in the Cold War, they'd say "who does the Kremlin" want to win. But I haven't seen any indication yet he'll allow complete slander ads to go on TV. He'll probably do what he did with the NCGOP right until November, and them let them lose in the swing states. that could spell disaster

Well if he wants to go that route we should have no problem bringing up his drug addicted wife who steals from the poor.

The Democrats just need to stop being wimps and just fight back.  That's what I like about Obama.  First time I've seen a national Democrat stand up for what he believes in and fight back against it.  He always bounces back stronger as well.

it's bad enough coming from McCain, but how long before Clinton starts calling Obama "Hamas' candidate"? she's followed along with every other ReThug smear.

are we still trying to tell ourselves that the GOP will go easy on Obama in the general?  Wow.

John McCain will have absolutely no idea what hit him by the fall.  He will be Abe Simpson.

I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to wailing on this clown for months at a time.

Oh man this is great news; I can't wait for Obama to obliterate this geezer.

The Republicans won't give up the White House without a fight, no matter who the nominee is.

I think we should all call on John McCain to immediately denounce and reject John McCain.

She has established that this is fair game and a Very Serious Issue.

She belongs to the "Family," and its founder Doug Coe praised the tactics of Mao and Hitler as leaders that his followers should emulate.

So Hillary will need to deny that she is a Nazi, or a Communist, of a genocidal maniac every single day.  

Hillary needs to get out there and deny that she is genocidal maniac, and she needs to repeat it every day. Why won't Hillary denounce genocide?

Why in the world would any democrat expect Republicans not to EXPLOIT the Wright/Obama love affair.

Hell, If I were a Republican, I'd have TV & RADIO ads of Wright/Obama 7 days from October to November.

Politics is about winning & pushing you agenda.

Liberals have a different agenda of being "Politically Correct"

Terrorists love the Dems is so 2004-2006. RIP.

McCain will hand us plenty of ammo. He already has. My concern is we package it properly with devastating easy-to-remember summation. We botched that in '00, garbage like You Ain't Seen Nuthin Yet and People vs. the Powerful. And '06 virtually wrote itself, anything negative about Iraq. I can almost guarantee the GOP will insert something short and simple, an '08 version of flip flopper, into the national vocabulary to describe Obama.

As far as honor, just remember what McCain did in the Florida primary, twisting Romney's old words regarding Iraq strategy, at the last minute of the most vital primary, after never mentioning it throughout the campaign.

I sure can't remember the public backlash against Republicans claiming that the terrorists are rooting for Democrats to win.  That's like page 1 of the Republican playbook.  When did the public consensus develop that such arguments are unacceptable, and where can I go to read about it?

From where I sit, the public may or may not put any stock in these arguments, but they sure don't seem to have any problem with the fact that the arguments get made.  Are we pretending that because we think these claims are off limits, everyone surely must agree with us?

Good post but please don't allow the Repubs to claim that "Danny" Ortega is a dictator.  He was elected president, just like the first time.

People assume that anything that people who are viewed as our enemies like is somehow bad.

This is bad thinking.  Hamas probably likes Obama because he's fond of talking to people honestly before bombing the crap out of them.

Jimmy Carter's recent trip to the Middle East showed us that these folks are open to diplomacy, even if the Bush Administration isn't.

Obama's not going to be a featherweight in international crisis issues (he displayed good judgement with his Pakistan bombing responses), but he's also going to try and recruit local powers to keep the peace, which is going to be necessary if we don't want to be in Iraq for the next hundred years.

Anyway, McCain's one hope was if he could convince Obama to take public financing; his lack of control over the state GOP races and 527s will probably give Obama the rationale he needs to keep using his fundraising machine.

Fair enough Big john, of course Obama never signed a statement calling his fellow soldiers war criminals, or spent 5 years with the communists, so I think we should ask is John McCain the Manchurian Canidate?

(No, Obviously not but hey if Slappy McCan't fly well-- seriously my dad retired at rear admiral and McCain was kind of view as the same sort of "legacy" officer that Bush is viewed as, the man was a suck pilot who crashed 4 jest before being shot down, and he would have been kicked out of Annapolis if not for his name).  Hell, I think someone should point out how many of McCain's friends have ended up in prison for Corruption, not just the Keating deal either, look at Duke Cunningham, or the chair of his AZ campaign-- if Ayers means Obama's anti-American, and Bill's friends mean Hill's pro-pedophilia, then surely the fact that McCain has a connection to multiple corrupt individuals should at least dent his "incorruuptible" facade.

Unfortunately, McCain isn't stupid enough to continue down this road.  But Obama's negatives can only go up.  

That's the problem with a candidate with zero accomplishments and no reservoir of good will with the public at large.  Unlike, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Obama is, quite literally, all talk.  When the Republicans define him in terms of Wright and Ayers, it's their word against Barack's.  Why should voters take a chance?  They know John McCain--and, as Obama himself said, anybody's better than Bush.

If you're running a campaign on the HOPE that Republicans are not going to attack based on whatever they think might work, well, you're just dumb.  And whining about it doesn't help.  

People the world over are really excited about him becoming president.

http://www.theworldwantsobama.org/search /label/Islamic%20World

That link is to the Islamic page. One of the stories:

Lots of people in my neighborhood, who until now, simply believed what the propagandists told them about American politics, got active and looked up in-depth information about the US primaries and about Obama. Often also, he got covered on Al-Jazeera and other Arab TV networks and every time, I witness the effect in my neighborhood. Yesterday, I went out shopping and suddenly spotted a poster of the Obama-campaign in the window of my grocery-dealer, who immigrated to Holland from Iran. He told me that he saw him on television and got so excited that he downloaded the poster from the internet and put it up. He would love him to become president, because with him, "finally, someone will talk to the idiot running my country!"

I hit post instead of preview. Need new glasses.

Given that

-Even Hillary has said Obama can win.

-Either of them will get the GOP smear campaign,  Hillary has plenty of negatives that will only need to be subtly reinforced to generate the negative emotions in independent and swing voters. It seems she has at least one new one that could have legs. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/tal k/2008/04/what-hillary-clinton-and-the-m -1.php

-Despite the charges of Hopium addiction, etc (? I still have my  "A Man from Hope" video), a lot of us are actually rational, informed and adequately intelligent enough to make a reasoned decision. Moreover, Obama has some major supporters, elected and not, who have never been considered mentally lacking or unbalanced.

I think there are several tangential advantages he has.

-The unbelievable symbol to the AA community that the glass ceiling is broken. To countless AA youth mired in ghettos and the cycle of poverty. I think this overwhelms what a Hillary presidency will do for women.

-Contrasted to what a Clinton nomination will do to the black support for the Democratic primary. If you haven't heard some of the AA community talking about this, pay more attention. The block did not support Rev Jackson for the simple reason that few really saw him as a credible candidate. Now they have one that is competent in the minds of many intelligent, knowledgeable people, has run a phenomenal campaign against an extremely strong candidate, and has the higher delegate count. The Super Delegates can take into account the popular vote, what there is of it. Keep in mind that the caucus states do not register a popular vote to tally in, and FL and MI will be inaccurate unless there are revotes with campaigns and both names on the ballots.

Personally, this will also extend to a lot people like me (white, 55, educated female) who lived through the Civil Rights era and have continued to fight the discrimination that persists. Trust me, the Democratic party does not want to infuriate, alienate and lose these blocks in '10 and beyond, probably to the Greens.

- Regaining immediately some of the good will we have lost world wide since W has been POTUS. Putting us much further ahead diplomatically, on Nov 12th, than we would be with Hillary on 1/20. There are incredible movements world wide that are just like this one, without the politcal leader. The bottom up, top down coalition has more power than than either alone to bring about change. Most of the transformational changes we need,  are also global. The problem solving and innovation has started here and elsewhere. It needs more exposure, effort and funding.

It isn't just America that needs to unite. The world is running out of time to find common ground and work together. There is a critical mass of world wide population that understands this. (See Blessed Unrest and other books like it) We aren't the only ones who have a government that is acting against our wishes in foreign policy and diplomacy. The Cold War mindset about the evil intentions of other governments was counter productive, it actually created and escalated the problem. To continue it will only continue the escalating violence and destruction, loss of lives and money that could be constructively spent to fix the problems. Putin has already reacted to Hillary's "obliterate Iran" comment with the concern that if we continue in that mode, they and others will be forced into spending money they don't have on defense.

I have lost an Ike prediction about this. Something to the effect that some day the people would rise up and tell their leaders to get out of the way so they could establish peace.

Your calender may not have this, mine says it is someday.

McCain and Obama personally dislike each other from when Obama first came to the Senate. Expect it to be very nasty and personal where as McCain does have respect for Hillary and vice versa. It would be more of a policy debate. Not so the other way

I listened to a McCain campaign appearance in New Orleans on XM Radio yesterday afternoon. First let me say that back in 2000, I was a McCain supporter in his bid against Bush. But, this guy is not the same person he was in 2000. I dont know what happened to him but he is a bitter, cranky old man. To boot he seems confused at times and worse arrogant. His answers to some very concerned questions from the folks attending the event were standoffish at times. I was a John Edwards supporter right til the end and still believe he was the best candidate. I am however supporting Obama now. As a republican I am totally disenchanted with the GOP and the current leadership of both parties. You listen to Obama and you get the true sense of a concerned, thoughtful, understanding leader. This is what we need right now.

The constant fear mongering over Iraq and terrorism is absurd. We most certainly should fear andbe concerned about Islamic Terrorism which the greatest threat to security we face. But we also have great economic concerns which McCain seems clueless about. Out with the old, in with the New....its time for real change in this country.

Just as when Al Queda made pro-Kerry statements, the Hamas pro-Obama statement is being made by intelligent people who are trying to manipulate our election. In both cases, they know how unpopular they are, and are "supporting" a candidate in order to manipulate us into electing Presidents that they favor. This isn't just my opinion, it's the CIA's analysis as well.

Sure, Bush and McCain are strongly anti-Al Queda and anti-Hamas. This is exactly what Al Queda and Hamas want, and benefit from. Because if the US acts like Al Queda and Hamas are important world-leading enemies, that validates them as the leaders of the anti-US movement. Of course, the Bush/McCain's unthinking aggressiveness also drives previously supportive people away from us. So not only are they causing the ranks of the anti-US forces to expand, they are publicizing Al Queda and now Hamas as the leaders. The result, of course, is that Al Queda recruiting has benefitted immensely, making them far stronger.

Of course, this is all what the current leaders of the Republican party want. They know that if the US has a scary enemy, they can use that fear to mobilize support for pretty much anything that they want to do (i.e. take over Iraq's oil fields, suppress dissent, illegally spy on americans, attempt to establish a permanent Republican one-party state, giving untold billions of dollars of non-bid contracts to their friends).

If they'd responded by doing what would have been best for the country, by capturing Bin Laden and the rest of the people actually responsible for attacking the US, and establishing effective counter-terrorist security, the whole thing would have been over years ago. So clearly that wasn't their goal.

Instead they shut down US counter-terrorist the instant that they were in power, ignored specific warnings that Al Queda planned an attack inside the US that could involve hijacking commercial airplanes and flying them into targets, only took a few faltering steps towards securing the borders when forced to by the Democrats, then pulled forces out of Afghanistan (where the people who attacked us are) in order to invade Iraq. Aside from the oil, invading Iraq was completely counter-productive, since they were the country keeping Iran in check (i.e. we put Iran in control of the middle east), and they were a secular country violently opposed to "islamic extremists" (i.e. we flipped a modern, secular government into an Islamic state). So not only are the Iraqi people much worse off now than under Saddam Hussein (not an easy achievement, they hate him, but now they hate us more), but we managed to put a government friendly with Iran in place of a government that hated Iran. And, of course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has managed to weaken the US Army while damaging our economy and discrediting us internationally.

If anyone wanted to do more harm to US interests in the Middle East than Bush and McCain have, I'm not sure how they could have done so. About all that you can say in their favor is that they made a few friends fantastically wealthy and advanced the fundamentalist vision of nuclear armageddon in the middle east. And that's what is really important.