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!