After last Tuesday's (5/6) primaries in SC and IN, Tim Russert declared, "We now know who the Democratic nominee will be.  And no one will dispute it."   I conceded defeat in my mind, even though Hillary hadn't yet.  I was operating under the presumption that she no longer had any chance to make up the gap in popular vote.  I figured that if Russert was to make such a declaration, they must have crunched the numbers.  Even though SC actually played out as expected, last minute expectations had been shifted by tightening poll numbers making the outcome more dramatic.   I now wonder what the hell he was talking about and what I must have been on to trust him.  The media long ago understood that Hillary was not going to catch up in pledged delegates.  They knew her argument rested on the popular vote.  They seemed to believe, as I and her other supporters did, that if she captured the lead in popular vote she would have a legitimate claim to the nomination to take to the superdelegates.  Polls have indicated that the American public think superdelegates should go with the winner of the popular vote.  I'd be happy to take a look at any polls that show otherwise.  Please share them if you have them.   After a week of waivering support, I took a look at the article that gave me hope in the first place.  This US News one.  It laid out Hillary's path to winning the popular vote.  It turns out, according to their predictions, she still very much can.  In fact, it only projected her to win 107k votes in W VA and she actually won 147k.  That's a big spread.    Here are that articles predictions for the remaining states:  

KY  Clinton +134,707 OR  Clinton -59,419 Puerto Rico  Clinton +300,000 Montana Clinton +28,488 SD  Clinton +18,805

According to Real Clear Politics, Clinton is only behind in popular vote by 409,060 if you include estimates for the four caucuses that did not keep a vote tally and FL's votes.  If you add up the predictions from US News, it comes to 422,581 votes for Hillary.  That would leave her ahead by 13,521 votes.   What I don't get is why the premature conclusion that the race is over.  If most pundits before seemed to think that winning the popular vote would give Clinton a real argument to the superdelegates, what changed?    Anyway, this is my reasoning to think that the race isn't quite over.  As many of you know, I will support Obama if he becomes the nominee, but I'm not ready to accept that he is the nominee yet.  It's not over til it's over. 

There's been a lot of talk this political season about what's "in the best interest of our party" as Democrats.  Usually, it's used as a means to try to force Hillary out of the race.  Here's my idea of what's in the best interest of our party:

We have two candidates that bring together different coalitions of the electorate.  However, we only have one candidate who will be young enough to run again in 8 years.  

Since our candidates vary little on policy issues, it would be in the best interest of our party for those two to unite on a joint ticket.  Clinton/Obama

Clinton will help us to energize and carry our Democratic base.  Obama will help us to energize and carry the youth, swing votes, and even some Republicans.  It hasn't been deemed the Dream Ticket for no reason.

For those traditional white middle class voters that Obama seems to have trouble courting, allowing Obama to serve as VP for 8 years will let them become more familiar and trustworthy of him.  They won't feel as many Obama supporters have suggested that they "can't take a chance on him" when he has served our country well for those 8 years.

This joint ticket would allow for the potential of 16 years of competent Democratic leadership in the White House.  Not only is that in the best interest of our party, but it's in the best interest of our nation.

Clinton/Obama '08  Obama/? '16

Yesterday, TPM dedicated two posts to whether or not the Obama campaign will attack Clinton on 90s scandals such as Whitewater and Cattle Futures.    David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, assured TPM this:

"We're not gonna do that," Plouffe said. "We have not talked about those issues in the campaign, and won't."

Unfortunately, this is not true.  The Obama campaign has already brought up the issues of cattle futures in a memo they released during the call for Clinton's tax returns:

But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit.

link

I sent this correction to TPM.  Unfortunately, I did not see an update on this story.  Now, I'm not alleging bias because I think for the most part this site does a good job of cutting through spin.  However, I just wanted to set the record straight.  The Obama campaign cannot claim they have not talked about this issue.  They have. 

Please recommend this if you believe in cutting through campaign spin to get to the truth.

As I have often said in the past, I think Obama is a skilled and intelligent politician.  For the most part he has a decent grasp of the issues.  He's a quick study on the things he doesn't know.  What has bothered me, though, is his promise of "new politics".   Even if I accept the idea that Obama has only gone negative in response to Hillary going negative, I still don't see how that changes anything.  I once saw Greg DeLassus write that no one will blame the victim for punching the bully back, but I don't think this is a fair analogy.  Obama got into politics with a promise to clean it up, he wasn't a helpless victim.  He entered a ring of bullies, surrounded by candidates and the media all players of "old politics" as he likes to call it.  From what I can tell, he had no real plan.   Anyone can claim they are going to change politics.  However, you have to have a plan to do so.  Simply holding out until someone hits first is not changing anything.  It perpetuates the cycle.    It's not like this is over if Obama should beat Clinton and then politics is changed.  He will be confronted with McCain and the Republican attack machine.  If Obama's actions now reflect the future, he'll have to go negative and fight back again.  Then if he's elected, the special interests and the Republicans will continue their attacks...and he'll play negative again...   At this rate, every four years someone will come along and say they are going to change the ugliness of politics, be a uniter not a divider, but once someone goes negative the cycle will continue and continue and continue...   So, my question is this:  How do you change that cycle in politics?  How can Obama make good on his promise?  Going negative, returning blows, answering tit-for-tat...that's all old politics.  Is there a way to change it at all or is it all a feel-good mass-marketed fantasy?   For those who will dispute that Obama has gone negative and engaged in what he's described as "old politics": 

He won't engage in the "politics of personal destruction".

Oops!

Also, he doesn't want to jump on people's gaffes and beat their words to death.

Unless it's convenient in Mississippi.

And:

"Misrepresenting your position and carefully parsing your words when you don't think you'll get caught are the hallmarks of the kind of politics that Barack Obama is running to change."

Except for on NAFTA.

Here's a good write-up from Slate:

At the next train stop, I'm going to stand behind Sen. Obama when he speaks. When he's decrying the trivial distractions in politics, I think he may be crossing his fingers behind his back.

As the senator's campaign train wound from one speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics to the next speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics, his campaign hosted a conference call to engage in the practice the candidate was busy denouncing. I suppose it would have been an even greater act of chutzpah for the Obama campaign to host the conference call while Sen. Obama was denouncing that kind of behavior, but not much more of one.

Obama campaign aides scheduled the call to talk about Hillary Clinton's fantastical story about her breakneck race to shelter under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia. You might think this would be the last story the Obama campaign would be pushing because in Wednesday's debate, the senator mistakenly suggested his campaign had only discussed the issue because reporters had brought it up—not because they were trying to take advantage of Clinton's extended work of fiction. To push the story again now would make Obama look even more insincere about that claim.

Continue Reading

During last night's debate, Obama had this to say about his PA "elitist" gaffe.

So the problem that we have in our politics, which is fairly
typical, is that you take one person's statement, if it's not properly
phrased, and you just beat it to death. And that's what Senator
Clinton's been doing over the last four days.
And I understand that. That's politics.

Today Obama said that Clinton was "in her element" last night.  Obama likes to claim, and many of his supporters believe, that he only defends himself when it comes to these non-issues he didn't want to address last night.  That he would never go on the attack against a fellow Democrat.

He, of course, is lying.  Remember this?

Barack Obama’s campaign has debuted a new radio ad in Mississippi called "Respect," highlighting what they call “derogatory” remarks Hillary Clinton made about the state late last year.

The ad also argues that Obama will “practice his Christian faith by respecting us” — an apparent push-back against the false Muslim rumors that have dogged him throughout the campaign.

In the 30-second spot, former Mississippi Governor Ray Mabus, an Obama supporter, derides Clinton for comments she made last fall singling out the state’s record of electing female politicians.

"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," Clinton told the Des Moines Register in October. "There has got to be something at work here. How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa.'"

Mabus accuses the Clinton campaign of calling Mississippi voters “second class.”

link

Why is it OK for Obama to take people's gaffes and run ads to capitalize on them, but when Clinton does it it's "old politics"? 

Why does he think he doesn't have to answer to the same standards he holds other people to?

Billy Glad's emotional blog about Hillary being his revolution struck a chord with me.  Though I'm only a 23 year old male, I understand his back and forth relationship with Hillary.  I started leaning towards Obama in the very beginning (before he even announced, when he went on Oprah to promote his book).  Soon, though, I took a closer look at Hillary and saw a lifetime of work that inspired me.  There have been times during this campaign where I have almost jumped ship, but like Billy I keep coming back to her.    As a 23 year old, I think one of the greatest promises of my generation is the re-emergence of the environmental movement.  Joni Mitchell in an interview once said that her number one issue in life is man's disregard for mother nature, and I believe we are finally coming around.  I'm not a single issue voter, but this one is very important to me.  Today I'd like to discuss why I believe Hillary has a great record on the environment and why I believe it actually outshines Obama's.  This isn't to say that Obama has a poor record, it's decent.  But I think Hillary has been more of a leader.   Let's start with Wal-Mart.  While she was on the board, Hillary helped create an environmental advisory board that started recycling programs, reduced packaging, and created their first "eco-store" which whose features like skylights were later copied across the industry.  To read more about this, click here:    This early record of progressivism has continued through to today.  Hillary is being a leader by making her campaign carbon neutral while Obama, with his infinite piles of cash, has only offset some of his flight emissions.  Read more here.   I've seen Hillary speak in person twice so far this campaign season and both times she focused a large portion on green issues.  Both times she said she wants to challenge America to work as aggressively on the renewable energy race as we did the space race.  Not only is this the right thing to do, it is the necessary thing to do.   Her energy plan is bold:

Clinton's plan would raise a great deal of money to invest in green energy and efficiency, partly from rescinding tax breaks offered to oil companies, partly from auctioning pollution credits. She would double energy R&D, offer special bonds to individuals and industries for efficiency investments, make the production tax credit for solar and wind permanent (which is huge), and directly stimulate the development of smart grids and plug-in hybrids. Spreading money around like this not only raises the chances for success, it also makes the plan a much easier political sell.

To read a full analysis of her environmental proposals, click here.   The number one issue where Clinton and Obama have differed on the environment is with the 2005 Energy Bill aka the Dick Cheny bill.  To read why this bill was so bad, click here.   Hillary watched this legislation very closely.  It began as an all right bill.  However, it quickly devolved during negotiations and gave in to many oil industry demands.  From Factcheck:  

"Clinton has been consistent in her opposition to the tax breaks the bill contained. She voted for the bill that originally passed the Senate, but spoke out against and opposed the final conference bill, objecting to tax provisions it included as well as the deletion of provisions to reduce oil consumption and increase the use of electricity from renewable sources."

  Hillary exerecised the appropriate judgment in that case.  The bill unfortunately passed and will have a long lasting negative impact on the environment.  It also increased our dependency on foreign oil.   Many environmentalists have been concerned with Obama's ties to coal, nuclear, and ethanol.  It's easy to understand some of his past support for it because he represents the state of Illinois.  While I believe Obama will probably try to do the right thing on the environment, his record isn't long enough to show this definitively.

To read a thorough article on Obama's connection with Exelon, his failure to hold them responsible for radioactive leaks, and David Axelrod's connection to the company, click here.   I'll leave you with a quote and a request that you recommend this post.  

"The risks of inaction [on climate change], for those who still cling to the outmoded and disgraced view that there is no need for action, are abundantly clear. The consequences are so dire that this election has to focus on this issue. We cannot afford to fiddle while the world warms because we've already seen and we know conclusively what that will do to us." -- Nov. 17, 2007, Hillary Clinton speaking in Los Angeles at the Global Warming and America's Energy Future forum sponsored by Grist

FactCheck.org took a look at Obama's claim that he doesn't take money from oil companies and here is their summary:

In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

For the article in full, click here.

I've always thought his claims about who takes money from were quite dubious, so I was not surprised when they found this:

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.

 

Genghis has said that these reader posts have sucked recently, so I'm hoping to start a discussion.  This might suck too, though.  Who knows?


During this campaign season, we have seen that most politicians have a "thing" that they're known for.  Something that they're deeply passionate about when it comes to policy.  Edwards had poverty.  McCain has Iraq.  Hillary has health care/children's rights.  I know Obama wants unity, but I was wondering if anyone could point me to an overarching theme of his career regarding policy. 
 
I will list Hillary's history on her passionate issues:
 

Starting with law school:  During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).[ She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.   She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.[ Discussing the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals" and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but rather courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.[ The article became frequently cited in the field.   During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[ and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.   Rodham maintained her interest in children's law and family policy, publishing the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977 and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.   Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation.   Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years (1979–1981, 1983–1992). Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.   As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system.  In one of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place.[   She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.   Clinton served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988–1992) and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986–1992).   In 1993, Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to head and be the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, hoping to replicate the success she had in leading the effort for Arkansas education reform. Clinton later acknowledged in her book, Living History, that her political inexperience partly contributed to the defeat, but mentioned that many other factors were also responsible.   Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997,   In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady. In 1999, she was instrumental in passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care   She worked with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and with other senators. And as a result, in 2005, Congress mandated a new form of military health care called TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) which gives those in the Selected Reserve – a component of the Ready Reserve – an opportunity to purchase TRICARE health coverage when not on active duty. 

This information came from either Wikipedia or Factcheck.org.  If anyone wants to dispute her involvement in SCHIP, please read this first.   So, please tell me what you think Obama's "thing" is.  Or is his unity thing the equivalent?  Does he have a history and passion for a certain line of policy?

I'm on a bit of a factcheck.org binge today.  I'm sure many of you have either seen posted on a blog here or sent via e-mail a list comparing Obama's and Clinton's Senate record.  You know, the one that compares Obama's introduced legislation to Clinton's passed legislation and concludes that Obama's is much more substantial.

FactCheck.org concludes this:

A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama's bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton's. Don't believe it.

Here is what they come up with:




To read it in full, click here.

This may be old news, but I was unaware and I know many people on this site are unaware that factcheck.org has found that:

Despite disparagement from political rivals, we find she deserves ample credit for expanding children's health insurance.

To read it in full, click here.

The oddest part to me about this is that in the Boston Globe article that called this into question this is how Ted Kennedy responded:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who cosponsored the 1997 legislation that eventually led to the creation of SCHIP, was asked whether Clinton was exaggerating her role. The Globe said he wouldn't criticize Clinton "directly" but said: "Facts are stubborn things ... I think we ought to stay with the facts."

Why would Kennedy, now that he endorsed Obama, suddenly change his mind on Hillary's role with SCHIP?  Politics of personal destruction?  Who here is really "tearing the party apart"?  Here he was before:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Washington Times, Aug. 6, 1997: The plan signed into law yesterday by Mr. Clinton and pushed by the first lady is a duplicate of the 4-year-old health care task force idea, except that it is paid for by a 15-cent tax on cigarettes.

One of the co-authors of the plan, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, credited Mrs. Clinton for her "invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program."

Years later, when Clinton was first running for the Senate, Kennedy's aide Littlefield was still giving her credit. The New York Times quoted him as saying, ''She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done.'' He said that when President Clinton himself was showing reluctance to back the new legislation out of fear it would upset a budget deal with Republicans, "We went to Mrs. Clinton and said, 'You've got to get the president to come around on this thing,' " and she did.

I knew from the time her supporters picked a Celine Dion song as her campaign's theme song that Hillary Clinton, my candidate of choice, was definitely not the "cool" candidate. But this is just ridiculous.

On this fluff piece from CNN's ticker, Hillary said she admires Mick Jagger not because of his music, not because of his rock 'nr oll lifestyle, but because of his "work ethic".

Speaking to reporters aboard her campaign plane Sunday morning, the Democratic presidential contender said she was eager to see "Shine a Light," the new documentary about the legendary rock band that was directed by Martin Scorsese and opens Friday.

Clinton said she attended her first Stones show as a high school senior in 1965, and has been a few times since. She praised Mick Jagger, the band's 64-year-old lead singer, and said she admired his work ethic.

"If you go to a Stones concert today and I have been, it's just amazing," Clinton said. "He has this incredible presence. He is very disciplined, he works out, and he's incredibly devoted to what he does."

Oh, Hillary.  She just wants to be our beast of burden.

I was delighted to read the ABC article about Philly's Mayor Michael Nutter.  I know many Obama supporters have felt a little sickened by certain tactics of Hillary's campaign and I read a lot about that in the media. 

However, many Hillary supporters have also felt sickened by Obama's campaign's tactics as well.  For instance, here is this gem from a while back:

In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation.

This is the same Jesse Jackson Jr. who claimed Hillary didn't cry about Katrina. 

So, here are Nutter's refreshing thoughts about being an African American and supporting Hillary:

Nutter has been called Philadelphia's Barack Obama. He is black, Ivy League-educated, popular and an agent of change -- just like Obama. But Nutter has remained steadfast in his support of Clinton -- to the surprise of many in this city.

The mayor acknowledges that some voters have approached him and asked, in his words, "Why not support a brother?"

"Somehow, someway, for some people there's an automatic assumption that a mayor who is African-American or some other elected official has to support another African-American," Nutter said.

"I thought that when Dr. King said that he wanted people to be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, I thought that's what he was talking about," Nutter added.

Nutter is sticking with Clinton, even though by doing so, he said he might be thwarting the election of America's first black president.

"Certainly the opportunity to demonstrate to my 13-year-old daughter that there is a bright future for her, that a woman could get elected president of the United States, is equally compelling," he said.

"I think that we are at this historical moment," Nutter said. "Either candidate will clearly make history. But you only get to vote for one. The most important thing is winning in November, putting a Democrat in the White House."

He added, "I'm a great fan of history. I don't know that when people are struggling to pay the bills, that they ultimately conclude that, 'Well, if we can just make history with this vote, then all of my problems will be solved.' It still, for me, always comes back to performance [and] track record."

Full article 

Long ago, what seems like an eternity now, we all took a close look at our democratic contenders.  In Hillary we saw experience and qualifications, a familiar set of progressive democratic ideas.  In Obama we saw a fresh start, the promise to end politics as we've known it.  We chose sides.  Now, here we are in the thick of things.  It's gotten ugly.  Clinton and Obama are launching negative attacks daily.  Recently, Obama has engaged in character attacks, the politics of personal destruction, even though his promise was that he would end all that. 
 
See:  http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obama-continues-character-assa.php
 
I've heard the arguments from people who believe (falsely, to me) that Clinton was the first to engage in this.  Even if that's true, here's why I think his recent trip on the low road has wounded his campaign.
 
Anyone can claim they're going to end politics as usual. However, if they are going to be serious, they will know they will eventually be confronted with politics as usual. How they act in the face of those tactics will define whether or not they are serious about ending those tactics. By actively engaging in them, Obama has shown it was all talk.

If he was serious about not engaging in the politics of personal destruction he should have had a plan once confronted with negative assaults. Mirroring is not a plan. If this is all he's got, why am I to believe he is anything new at all?
 
I think he missed a real opportunity.  If he had stuck to positive messages, most Hillary supporters would have seen him as an authentic challenger to past rules. If he had only issued factual rebuttals to the issues and avoided character assaults, he really would have been doing something new.  The reason I haven't supported him from the beginning is because I knew this day would come, and I doubted he had anything new to offer, a new path to victory.  Unfortunately, this became truth.
 
So, to most Hillary supporters, I think, we now see him as what we've thought all along. Words. Just words.  So, we'll keep fighting the good fight and fighting for the candidate we believe will actually win in the fall.
 
Thoughts?

Yesterday on a thread, I mentioned that Obama was launching character attacks against Clinton--counter to one of the very basic promises of his campaign--and I was disputed after I left.  I wanted to take this chance to try to prove my point.  Here are some key quotes from an ABC report:

 

Today, the Obama campaign blamed Clinton for what Gallup called a "perceived honesty gap" and Plouffe called a "character gap."

Plouffe said Clinton is "consistently engaged in political calculation to mislead voters" and laid out a case that Clinton is a liar (though he never used the L word so forbidden in politics.)

Assailing the Clintons' refusal so far to release any recent tax returns or the names of donors to the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, Plouffe asked, "What are the Clintons scared of? Why won't they release this information? … What's lurking there?"

See a pattern there?

One of the character attacks from the Obama campaign that has bothered me the most so far is this one:

The campaign manager also mentioned a recent "60 Minutes" interview in which Clinton said Obama wasn't a Muslim "as far as I know."

"She has shared prayer breakfasts with Sen. Obama and knows without a shadow of a doubt that he is a Christian," Plouffe said. "These kinds of evasions and misleading of voters causes a real 'character gap.'"

I've read many posters on this blog who have taken a second look at that video and admitted they jumped the gun.  How could Clinton have known she was going to be asked the same question three times and at that point she would "hedge."  How many "no"s does one person have to say before that's accepted as her answer?  The Obama camp pushing this button is one of the shadier things I've seen them doing, but I think is consistent with their race-card playing tactics.

To read the article summarizing this in full, click here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4495865

Feel free to tell me how saying someone has a "character gap" is not a character attack.

Yesterday, Obama attacked Hillary on NAFTA and here is a key quote from his memo:

"Misrepresenting your position and carefully parsing your words when you don't think you'll get caught are the hallmarks of the kind of politics that Barack Obama is running to change."

However, here is how the NAFTA story went (from Politico):

"For four days after a news report alleged that Sen. Barack Obama’s economic adviser had told Canadian officials to ignore the Democrat’s tough talk on trade deals, the campaign gave incomplete – and sometimes misleading – explanations of whether a meeting had even taken place.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Monday night that the campaign had known of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canada’s consul general in Chicago since a Canadian television network, CTV, first reported the interaction last Wednesday.

“When they reported it, we were aware of it at that point,” Burton said.

Burton and other campaign aides – even Obama himself – vociferously denied the substance of the report, which alleged Goolsbee had given back-channel assurances to Canada that the Illinois senator’s call for reopening labor and environmental rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement was merely political posturing.

But for days, the campaign was less-than-forthcoming on a specific detail: Had a meeting actually occurred?

“Well, the Canadian ambassador issued a statement saying that that story was absolutely false. There had been no such contact,” said Susan Rice, an Obama foreign policy adviser, on MSNBC’s “Tucker” show Thursday. “There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word . . . Period.”

Also Thursday, Goolsbee told ABC News that he “would not confirm or deny meetings with anyone.” Yet he hinted at an interaction, saying Canada’s consul general contacted him “at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.”

David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, was asked Friday by reporters to comment on the conversation reported on Canadian television.

“The story is just not true. Obama's position on this is very clear. Our campaign and the ambassador have been very clear on this; it did not happen,” Plouffe said, appearing to tailor his statement to only address elements of the initial Canadian TV story that had been discounted.

The Canadian network tweaked its initial story last week to reflect that Goolsbee had spoken with the consul general in Chicago, not the ambassador in Washington, as it was first reported. It is also appears now that the Canadian officials, not Goolsbee, initiated the contact.

Despite Obama's promises to run as a transparent and straight-talking candidate, the campaign offered muddled responses that allowed the story to metastasize in the days leading up to a primary election in Ohio, where trade issues could prove decisive."

A definite parsing of words and misrepresentation of position.  How can Obama change politics when he's running politics as usual?