I saw Obama at one of his Iowa events this weekend (not the senior citizen event), and I'll confess that it was a far cry from "attack" mode.

Obama spoke for probably 40 minutes and then took 3 questions (2 from people wearing T-shirts about their issues, and 1 from someone who seemed to be a staffer). It was all very controlled.

Obama mentioned Hillary by name twice. The first time was to reference the dispute about whether you could talk to dictators in your first year in office. The second was to discuss Hillarycare. Obama gave Hillary props for trying, but then critiqued her closed-door approach. He said he'd talk to the people and take out his own TV ads if necessary. That's all.

There was a fair amount of rhetoric about how he'd tell the truth, and how voters should choose a politician they trust, but that's pretty much indistinguishable from other candidates' Iowan stump speeches.

It was hard to tell how his approach was playing with his audience. On the one hand, he clearly had many more volunteers (many of whom appeared to be very enthusiastic high school students) than you see at most candidate events. On the other hand, a lot of the audience seemed to be in "shopping" mode.

Maybe he's planning on rolling out his sharpened elbows outside of Iowa???

"Now it's been very deft politically," Obama said, "but one of the things that I firmly believe is that we've got to be clear with the American people right now about the important choices that we're going to need to make in order to get a mandate for change, not to try to obfuscate and avoid being a target in the general election and then find yourself governing without any support for any bold propositions."

Promises, promises. It would indeed be great for Senator Obama to start "contrasting" his positions to Senator Clinton's but I thought that he had already been trying to do that all along. I remember his attempts at establishing "contrast" in foreign policy back during the summer and how well that went. In fact, that was the beginning of the downward slide for him, after he conclusively cemented the perception that he was too "green" at this time to be trusted with the single most consequential position in the whole world. There have been lots of debates in which he's had the opportunity to highlight the "contrasts" with Senator Clinton, but each time he came out looking uncomfortable, unable to think on his feet or inexperienced. So, yes, Senator, we really wish to hear about these "bold propositions" that you have not yet shared with us, and how you are better qualified than Senator Clinton, but remember that you must stay away from talking about your purported early "opposition" to the Iraq war because, when you had the opportunity to substantively express this "opposition", you voted repeatedly for funding to perpetuate that war; and under no circumstance should you again slam anyone on how they voted on the K-L bill, because you did not even bother to show up for the vote!

Other than for those two caveats, we are now waiting with bated breath to be enlightened, Senator...

What I hear from Obama is that Hillary is like Bush, which I don't believe at all.

To say that Hillary is like Bush would play out very well with the small number of lefties and netroots out there, but gets a chuckle from the majority of people because it is obviously a stupid comparison... Bush ran as a center-right Republican until -- to win elections and build a permanent Republican majority -- Rove miscalculated and yanked him way over to right, where he now gets the support of only those 30% or so of wingnuts who live out there. Clinton is a center-left Democratic with a solid progressive record. There is no comparison with Bush unless you are so far to the left that anyone to your right looks Republican...

Do you think that Hillary is "polarizing"? Think again! The only truly "polarizing" figure I know in American politics today is GWB because he manages to "polarize" even people who are very close to the center of American politics. Hillary is "polarizing" only in so far as the "pole" inhabitants a.k.a the wingnuts (left and right) have always had this strong reaction to her. But guess what? Those people were already "polarized", anyway, because the live in the "poles" of American politics!!! Not only are they against Hillary, they are also against each other! People in the center (means most "normal" people) do not have the visceral reaction to HRC that the wingnuts do. That is why she has been leading in the polls for so long, and why the wingnuts in these forums do not seem to understand her success or how anyone can be supporting her...they live in the poles, that is why.

I think it is possible that a dramatic, complex foreign policy test will arrive on December 10th---and could quite possibly influence the first primaries.

Kosovo, which has been a UN protectorate since 1999 will declare independence---the serbs, backed by the Russians, will say oh no you don't---we are cancelling the 1999 treaty-----the place is filled with various factions of ferocity, and it could really explode. The new yorker article mentions that Joe Biden supports the independence very strongly---and that kosovo has a criminal economy larger than its regular economy-----

My point is---I think it is not possible to anticipate just how serious it will be---and what the differences there will be between Clinton and Obama.

There is a backstory of Bill Clinton taking action through Nato to bomb the serbs out of there----and part of the justification was the slaughter of 100,000 albanians---which turned out to be ---10,000.

Let's see:

Obama has dangly-down bits and Clinton is smooth round the end.

Obama's skin is darker and Clinton's hair is longer.

Obama takes five to seven days to decide to assume a Edwards/Kucinich like point of view and it takes Clintonn seven to nine months to be shamed into the same opinion.

Obama shows his contempt of America by not wearing a lapel pin and Clinton by being married to the most popular Republican President of the 20th century.

Obama accepts money from flesh and blood people and corporations and Clinton shuns the flesh and blood folk for her corporate overlords unless they are really, really rich.

Obama is just barely left of center and Clinton is right of center.

Did I miss anything?

If we can't end the culture of corruption within our own party, we don't deserve power.

Liberal Larry,

Been there. Did that.

The Democratic era of corruption ($12,000 of abused franking privileges and kiting checks to pay for grocery money cause Ron-dog was slow paying Congressional pay) was killed off by the rise of 'Salamander' Gingrich and his Contract on America.

Kinda ludicrious now that one thinks about it . . . Stevens has that beaten by many powers of ten by himself.

dcshungu:

Clinton is not like Regan or Bush43. That is hyperbole and does no one any good.

Clinton is like GOLDWATER. She wants an ecomincally bimodal society and does not care who we sleep with, what we smoke or how much we drink as long as corporate America . . . Okay the America part doesn't matter either . . . gets its piece of the pie.

Bush and buddies are about hoarding wealth at the expense of everybody and everything else.

Clinton is about the wealthy making wealth at the expense of everybody and everything else.

Clinton will gladly put her name on it seven to nine months later . . . If the polls point that way and the effected industry can make an expanded profit from it . . . Yep! That's character.

As for proof . . . Read and compare the healthcare proposals of the DEMs and REPs. When finished ask yourself who reaches under the insurance company's kilts and gives a firm handshake . . .

Here's one to start: Obama and Hillary are both backed by anti-gay AA religious figures, but only Obama gives them a national platform to present their views.