In Josh's post, he writes that Hillary did Obama a favor by getting all
of the bad out in the open, which now takes the sting from the
scandals. He accuses Hillary of basically throwing the kitchen sink at
Obama in her campaign to be the nominee. What is the evidence he lists?
Wright, Rezko and Bitter. First, let's take Wright. Hillary didn't have
anything to do with that blowup. That was pushed by the media. Josh
Marshal just rewrote campaign history #1. Now, Rezko. While Hillary did
mention it in a debate, it was to rebut Obama's attack earlier in the
debate questioning Hillary's commitment to the fight against the ideas
of Ronald Reagan and other conservatives. Further, the story was
already out there, published almost exclusively by Chicago papers. Josh
Marshall just rewrote campaign history #2. And now Bitter. Well,
unfortunately he's wrong again because that story broke from a report
by an Obama supporter on the pro-Obama Huffington Post site. Josh
Marshall just rewrote campaign history #3.

I know Josh Marshall
wants us all to believe that his support for Obama was based on the
trashy attacks by Hillary, but it's just not true. Here's what Josh
completely leaves out: how Obama told us that he would get all of
Hillary's supporters, but she wouldn't get all of his; how Michelle
Obama said she'd have to think about it before voting for Hillary if
she were the nominee; how his campaign put out a talking points memo
fanning the flames suggesting that the Clintons' comments in New
Hampshire were racially charged. We also mustn't forget that when
nearly everyone was saying who they endorsed or for whom they were
voting, Josh Marshall did not. Much was discussed on this site re: such
an endorsement - many implored him to endorse Obama, while others noted
that it helped him keep his neutrality by not endorsing. His non-public
endorsement was all but known from those who regularly read his
posting, though, just like Donna Brazile - undeclared, but not
uncommitted.

It must be nice being able to gloat about how you were right about everything - if only it were true.

As you know the slum, landlord Tony Rezko has bubbled up into the 2008 presidential campaign.  It's come up because of Obama's sorted links and friendship with the man who is the slum, landlord for many residents of Sen. Obama's former district as a state senator in Illinois.  Rezko even helped Obama purchase his million dollar plus home where the Obamas now reside.

It's come up that Obama's ties to Rezko may go deeper, including to an Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi.  When pressed, Obama said he has "no recollection" of meeting him.  However, it's come out that Obama was not only at a party with Nadhmi Auchi, but he made a big welcome and a few toasts for Auchi, the guest of honor at a fundraiser for him.  http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/896844,CST-NWS-SNEED16.article

It's also been discovered that evidence linking Auchi to visits to Chicago when Obama was running for U.S. Senator has been erased from the internet.  Coincidence?  Probably not.  http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Rezko_friend_scrubs_evidence_of_2004_0130.html

I wonder if Obama really doesn't recollect meeting this billionaire from Iraq?  For my part, I think it makes his claim to have no recollection seem a bit dubious.

then how is he going to stand up to al Qaeda?

I'm sure we all
recall Obama decrying PACs and 527s supporting his competitors John
Edwards and Hillary Clinton.  He referred to the groups, which include
labor unions and EMILY's List, as "shadowy, Washington-based
organizations."

Now that these PACs and 527s have popped up
supporting his candidacy, where's Obama's anger at their spending?  If
he can't stop their spending DIRECTLY on his behalf, why aren't people
expressing their outrage?

Obama supporters have expressed
outrage about the proposed Wright ad by the NC GOP and McCain's
inability to stop its running.  Here's a quote from HusseinTenaX: "So
he's a public liar and jackass over it."  I guess the same applies to
Obama, no?  And if not, why not?

Here's a link documenting Obama's sham disdain of PAC and 527 spending: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-wins-endo.html

then how is he going to stand up to al Qaeda?

I'm sure we all recall Obama decrying PACs and 527s supporting his competitors John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.  He referred to the groups, which include labor unions and EMILY's List, as "shadowy, Washington-based organizations."

Now that these PACs and 527s have popped up supporting his candidacy, where's Obama's anger at their spending?  If he can't stop their spending DIRECTLY on his behalf, why aren't people expressing their outrage?

Obama supporters have expressed outrage about the proposed Wright ad by the NC GOP and McCain's inability to stop its running.  Here's a quote from HusseinTenaX: "So he's a public liar and jackass over it."  I guess the same applies to Obama, no?  And if not, why not?

That's the import of David Axelrod going on record devaluing the votes of white, working class men and women.  While I am not white, I come from a working class family, and it is truly disturbing for the Obama campaign to be spewing such vile sentiment toward Democratic voters.  His implication - don't focus on them because Republicans win that demographic anyway. 

Unfortunately, not only is his statement truly elitist and degrading, but his analysis seems off.  Simply because the Republicans traditionally win that demographic does not mean we don't need to try like hell to carry those voters in the general election.  Also, these are voters in a Democratic primary so presumably they are inclined to support a Democrat, and it's important to get their votes.

This sort of elitist rhetoric has become an unmistakable trend of the Obama campaign and it needs to stop.

Popular Vote Count
Clinton: 15,095,663
Obama: 14,973,720
margin: +121,943 Clinton
source: Real Clear Politics

========================

Hillary has taken the lead in the most important index - the popular vote - among the primary states that have voted up till now.  It would be a travesty if Hillary has the lead in the popular vote, and yet Obama steals this election with superdelegates and overturns the will of the people.  Looking at the upcoming states, while Obama may win Indiana and North Carolina, it seems unlikely that he will be able to overtake the popular vote once you factor in the rest of the states that have yet to vote.  Further, it's becoming increasingly apparent that Obama will lose in the general election against John McCain.  Obama should do what's right and concede defeat so that Hillary can start making the case against John McCain so that Democrats can take back the White House.

It has just been reported that Howard Dean worked with the Obama campaign to cancel the debate in North Carolina.  This is a blatant showing of bias by the DNC and it is deplorable.  First, the DNC doesn't want to count the votes from those in two states who showed up and expressed their preferences at the polls.  Now, they want to choose the Democrats' candidate for us.  This is truly outrageous.  Howard Dean must go!

he should bow out of the race.  He has outspent Hillary 3:1 in PA, as he did in TX and OH, and yet he still may not win.  That's really incredible.  This isn't the general election either.  This is the primary.  It seems unlikely that he will win over a majority of Democratic voters despite his money advantage and the media's love affair with him.  That is not good.  He is the frontrunner, the party establishment is behind him as is the elite, wealthy class of the Democratic Party and he still is unlikely to pull out a victory.  That forecasts badly on his chances in the general election.  Please Obama, do our party a favor and bow out.

We get it.  You support Barack Obama.  However, because you decided not to endorse when everyone else was, you should at least try to be as unbiased as possible.  That means stop spinning everything to be anti-Hillary and pro-Obama.  It's really disgusting.  Many democrats want to read and support your site, but are repelled because you find your unabashed support for Obama will have no costs or repercussions.  Well, it does.  First, it turns people away.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, it tarnishes your image as a reporter.  It is sad that you have stooped to such levels, and I am asking you to stop it.  Please.