I noticed this headline on the screenshot about Obama's article and was curious. I laughed at how Clinton-friendly the language was. Not much needs to be said about it, read it for yourself the link is: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/clinton.foreign.fact/index.html

What scanty research! The heavily circulated Chicago Tribune piece is much better.

I am starting to notice a trend. Hillary is obviously lying in the weeds while the press does her bidding wagging their tongues at Obama going negative. I have no doubt that Camp Clinton has taken notice that the NAFTA flap reversal hasn't grabbed in the MSM, nor has her empowering statements about John McCain and the implication that he is better than Barack Obama on national security. Several times now in the past few days she floats the proposal of a joint ticket, surprisingly (cough), while Obama takes his first clear and strong negative jabs at her. Could this be a new strategy? It would be a pretty easy set-up for her to spin this to "I am talking about Democrats uniting while he just continues to attack. Where is the change he so proudly touts?" Add on top of this situation the statements of Samantha Powers and Hillary is sitting on a Sit-N-Spin that the Obama campaign, at least right now, is handing her. I fear it is not a coincidence that she brings the joint ticket to the table again immediately following the Powers flap. The capability and power of the Clinton game should not be underestimated and I fear that the Obama Camp has fallen back on it's haunches a little bit by seeing her campaign so vulnerable. It's time to pick it up. They need to continue to call her out on her obvious statements like the McCain empowering. Now is not the time for mistakes.

I write this blog immediately following watching the 60 Minutes piece on the  Clinton and Obama campaigns in Ohio. I understand that this is the heat of the political moment but I felt shame as I watched Hillary Clinton respond to the question about the smear campaigns on Obama's religion and patriotism tonight. She qualified her answer of "taking him at his word," regarding his religion with "as far as I know." This is beginning to get ridiculous. Why would she do that? I thought they were from the same party, the same country, and the same underlying belief systems? Was I wrong to think that a fellow Democrat, or a fellow American for that matter, would have strongly denounced the idea that a candidate is being falsely attacked based on religion or race?This is huge. She wrote it off by comparing it to the many smear campaigns she has fought through. Sure. Fair Enough. But come on! As Obama clearly cited when he was asked about the situation in the piece, attacks like this not only harm him and his Christian faith but also the faith of Muslims. It is an inherent smear on the Muslim faith itself and a Presidential Candidate should not equivocate on tactics that are so vile as to defame not only a prominent, respected, and successful individual but an entire religious faith. It is behavior like this that I hoped we would begin to move away from following the national tragedy of the last 8 years, I am afraid that with a Clinton Presidency once again strong, basic American principles will be tossed to the side in favor of political necessity. I am not only afraid of this being true. Tonight, she proved it. We as country are better than this!

Mark Penn and his constant ridiculous spin seem to be just another sign of Hillary Clinton's lack of ability to manage and lead when the going gets tough. Yesterday it seemed apparent that even people close to her, Harold Ickes, were laying blame on Penn and yet today he is releasing memos in the campaign. I am shocked that for all of the "shake-up" talk we heard when Obama's win streak took hold that we have not seen a substantive, CONSISTENT change in her tactics. The changes that I have noticed seem to come in bursts, soon to disappear. They seem like trial balloons. Saturday she rails "Shame on you, Barack Obama!!!" but the next day she recoils from the anger saying she got caught up in the contentiousness of the campaign. It is hard for me not to read that set of events as a decision to see if the attack and anger would stick and if they don't retract them, citing the intensity of the campaign. I know none of this is shocking in politics but what does it speak to her ability to lead.

As President their will be times when one's back is politically against the wall, that is unavoidable, and she seems to be failing the tests a rigorous presidential campaign provides to prove her capability in handling  precarious political situations. For all of the talk she has thrown around about  the tremendous ways she has been "vetted" I would like for someone to have her answer a question about the inconsistencies that are apparent in her campaign management. A reporter should ask her how voters should think of a presidential candidate who hadn't planned on her campaign existing past Super Tuesday and summarily seemed to fall into disarray.

For all of the hyperbole about Obama's lofty rhetoric he at least has handled himself with grace when pushed. The depth of management, on all levels, in the Obama campaign is phenomenal. No one can argue that he hasn't proven his ability to lead. They aren't perfect but they have handled their mistakes well. This is, I dare to say, the largest organization that Hillary Clinton has ever had the opportunity to lead and she seems to be at a loss. I will not question that she has had many great accomplishments in her life that would make her a great president but her campaign management has not proven itself to be of presidential quality.

National Public Radio's Robert Siegel interviewed Bill Cunningham following McCain's disavowal of Cunningham after he used Barack Obama's full name in a provovative introduction for McCain at a rally in Ohio. Cunningham denied he was attempting to smear Obama. It is his full legal name and that is what many president's have gone by was his argument. He implies that he was led to such talk by the McCain campaign staff, naming specifically former Senator Mike DeWine. Cunningham goes on to denounce McCain and say he felt thrown under the Straight Talk Express. He hinted that he would consider endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Cunningham's argument included an attack on the media's softness towards Obama that was reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's current strategy. Even though this is just another member of the pundits, it is one that has enough of a voice that McCain chose him to get Conservative's with questions on board. Job well done.