I thought this blurb from the Huffington Post showed that Obama isn't going pull a Kerry and sit idly by while his record gets impuned.

Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

I'm quite sure that most democrats have wanted to lay it down to Senator Lieberman for a while.  The thing I respect most about Obama -- from the start -- is his willingness to approach problems head on.

Here, he took the 2000 Dem. VP candidate and (probably) told him to stop misrepresenting his Israel position.  He probably told him that they can disagree on Iraq, but that they had no differences on Israel and to say otherwise makes Joe look foolish and sows unnecessary discord on an important international matter.

He has the authority, demeanor, and guts to be an amazing president.

 

Which candidate has won the nomination? Which is the candidate that seems to be in it for the right reasons?

Candidate 1:

"We all made this journey for a reason. It's humbling, but in my heart I know you didn't come here just for me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be."

" We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who've been told that they cannot have what they dream, that they cannot be what they imagine."

"yes we can"

vs. Candidate 2:

"I am in this race for them -- all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference to their families."

"I believe," she said, "that both my theory and my strategy, and my track record and how I'm doing right now, really adds up to a very compelling argument that I will actually win."

"I believe I can provide the economic leadership we need to make the changes that are so desperately required, and I ask for your support and your counsel and your help as we make this journey together."

It's a difference.  Yes there are quotes, like the last one, where Candidate 2 asks for votes and asks for help. Like the first where she says that she's shouldering the burden of Americans. But it's a basic conceit that only Candidate 2 can provide answers or help to make US lives better.

In terms of policy, it's reflected in the health care debate. Both candidates believe government should help, but Candidate 1 thinks it should be made available for people to afford. Candidate 2 thinks it should be forced upon people. 

It is a genuine difference. It's been there from the start. And it shows why Candidate 1 has won and why Candidate 2 is clinging on to conceit that "I am the strongest nominee."

No, you're not. You've never been. Any current polling reflects only that you have not been hit with any attacks since Ohio at the latest.  And because Senator Obama has required a higher discourse, you have yet to really been hit by a negative attack at all.

We, Democrats, progressives, and proud Americans, will be taking back the White House in 2008. We are proud to have Obama as our leader -- but it's not about him.

As Hillary keeps posturing on Michigan -- and refuses to accept an overly generous offer by Michigan Dems to seat 69 delegates for her and 59 for Obama -- I thought it would be fun to look back at her statements regarding the the Dem primary.

She was quoted in the Washington Post in October 2007:

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for
anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire
Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally
did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to
be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination,
we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in
2008."

Speaking in the first primary state, Clinton said she understands concerns about her refusal. Rivals Barack Obama,
John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden took their names off
Michigan's Jan. 15 primary ballot this week, and Michigan's hope for
nominating clout all but evaporated.

Clinton's comment reflects an optimism she will win her party's
nomination to face the Republican nominee in November 2008. She said
any snub to Michigan could hurt her _ and all Democrats' _ chances to
defeat the Republicans there.

Clinton was prompted by a caller who said, "It strikes me that this
is politics as usual, where politicians say one thing and do something
else."

Clinton brushed aside the comment.

Congrats to The Reality-Based Community for an amazingly funny riff on Ann Coulter's reaction to Obama's speech.  It is RIGHT on.  Here's the beginning of it:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/literature_/2008/03/if_ann_coulter_had_liveblogged_the_gettysburg_address.php

Old Abe is approaching the podium, looking even more like a badly-dressed and ill-proportioned scarecrow suffering from a depressive disorder than he usually does. I mean, if you're going to be an empty suit, couldn't you at least find a suit that fits?

And as usual, he's not wearing an American flag lapel pin. Too good for it, I suppose. Probably thinks it's tacky, and that "real patriotism" doesn't have to be displayed. Typical intellectual arrogance.

Unfortunately, duty has required me to get a seat up close, so I'm likely to be able to hear his annoyingly high, faint voice.

Of course, it's going to be hard to take anything he says seriously, since he's obviously just angling for votes in Pennsylvania. Notice that he didn't bother to give a speech at Antietam.

Okay, here we go. More "eloquence," no doubt.

Four score and seven years ago

"Fourscore and seven"? Puh-leeze! Couldn't you make it just a little more pompous? Only a moonbat could regard this guy as an orator.

our fathers brought forth on this continent,

Ummm ... didn't we have mothers, too? Well, maybe Lincoln didn't; he looks like he came out of a test tube marked "Failure." But somehow I doubt that the suffragette harpies who swoon over Father Abraham are going to be pleased by the omission.

Anyway, shouldn't someone as smart as Lincoln is supposed to be know that it's mothers who "bring forth"? That thing that fathers do is called "begetting." (I'd always wondered whether Mrs. Lincoln's brats were any kin to Old Ape.)

a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Ahhh...now he slips it to us! "Fourscore and seven," indeed! He's bringing us back to the Marxist rant of 1776, completely ignoring the Constitution of 1787 in rhetoric as he has in practice. I'll believe we're all equal when I'm as tall as Lincoln, or as ugly. And the slaves he's so fond of may be his equals, but I'm damned if they're mine.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Right. As if Mr. Lincoln's victory over his sectional enemies on behalf of his black friends were the same as the survival of the nation. It all comes back to the cult of personality.

We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

Well, no. It would be more "fitting and proper" to leave the dead in peace rather than to use them as a club with which to beat conservatives. But Lincoln, like all liberals, is completely shameless. Joshua is right: they're basically fascists.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.

"A larger sense"? I defy anyone to find any sense whatever in this sentence, large or small. And does he think that "consecrate" and "hallow" really add anything to "dedicate"? More moonbat "eloquence," I guess.

The Guardian takes a first crack at Hillary's First Lady schedules.  Turns out she wasn't actually involved with any of the major events of the Clinton administration, but rather far away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/hillaryclinton.uselections20081

That said, I was reviewing some of the pages from 2003 and it shows that she did attend some NAFTA and healthcare meetings. For whatever that's worth...

Here's the link to the actual schedules:

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/hrcschedules.html

You'd think he'd be happy enough to OWN the voting this weekend. Four states (two upsets), the Virgin Islands(!), and a Grammy.

Congrats to Senator Obama.  We're working hard for you.

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/02/10/obama_wins_a_grammy_for_hope_book/

Does anyone have any historical background on the success of campaigns once they've gone to the all-volunteer model?

Hillary's top staff are now working without pay.

Giulani's folks did this.  And then he fell apart.

I know McCain fell apart back during the summer and lost his whole staff...but if that happened during the actual race, he would have fallen right out.

Does anyone have a historical perspective on this?