C'mon Hillary, you know damn well it was fearmongering...it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines, "Vote for Hillary or your children won't be safe!!"

Its too long to copy and paste in here, so my full analysis of her blatant fearmongering is here:

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27622528

Isn't a little absurd to be arguing Obama does not have the strength to fight against McCain after what happened yesterday ?

Since Hillary is touting her White House experience; then this is relevant to her claims.

The Twin Towers were attacked in 1993, and following that a number of US embassies, and the US Cole. All were attacked while she was gaining all that White House experience. She and Bill left Office seven years after the Twin Towers was attacked, and they had failed to take sufficient action to eliminate the threat that turned into 9/11.

The Red Phone rang in 1993, and for more than seven years, Hillary and Bill left the Sleeping Children of America without strong protection.

," but two years later he said he agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war"

Why does she keep spewing this lie? She said it in the last debate and Obama rebutted it then, yet she keeps distorting his position. This is why she cannot be a leader of this country.

You best believe she will distort the position of leaders of other countries just like she does Obama. She will slant them and make biased statements that have real global consequences and we may wind up in multiple wars on mulitple fronts simply because Hillary has a very difficult time telling the truth when it does not fit her agenda.

Just look at how she claims right now to have voted for diplomacy despite the title of the bill stating it was clearly about authorizing the use of military force.

I am praying nightly for a big win in Tx and even a squeaker of a win in OH...just so we can get these Clintons and especially Hillary off the national stage.

She is doing far more harm than good.

She wants to now morph into yet another campaign line about national security and potentiate it by hyping it into the crisis mode, yet she has nothing to demonstrate she has ever handled a national crisis...nada...zilch...ZERO situations.

Yet, we are suppose to trust her on issues of national security to keep us safe?

No thanks.

McCain/Clinton '08?

Anyone want to revist the chaos and confusion in the Clinton White House over striking Bin Laden in 1998?

Remember where the CIA wanted the go ahead to strike but Clinton's team waffled and he got away????

It's funny -- these are the questions the PRESS should really be bringing up, instead of just parroting Clinton talking points all day.

A commercial is not a debate. Ignoring ridiculuos accusations is not running. Nice try though. See you at the Alamo.

Please make her go away! I truly can't stand it any more. The BS spin about him needing to win every state on Tuesday is going to make my head explode. Never have I seen more tortured logic.

Voters in Texas & Ohio, PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!

Some interesting data in this survey found via this blog :

Experience continues to lose out to change, as only 10% say experience is the primary trait on which they are basing their vote for a nominee.

I’ll spare you Hillary folk any speculation as to why the ineffective, misdirected 3AM ad is running. Doesn’t matter anyhow, if the data in the poll cited is anywhere close:

Geographically, we created six groupings of State Senate districts and looked at how the
race is breaking in those groupings. Barack Obama enjoys majority support in DFW (36
delegates), Houston (34 delegates), Austin (8 delegates), and even San Antonio (10
delegates), while Hillary Clinton enjoys majority support in the Valley/border regions (22
delegates) and the remainder of the state (17 delegates).

BO leads by 23% in DFW, by 10 in Houston, by 21 in SA, and by 41 in Austin. Hillary leads by 29% in the border district and by 23 in Rest of State. So Obama gets most of 88 delagates and Hillary most of 39. Before the caucuses.

Hi Greg,

First, let me apologize for any sarcasm in my comments towards you. I certainly recognize that you're good at the role that you're playing in this election.

But I will say that I disagree strongly with your assessment that Obama intends to blister Hilary in any way, shape, or form.

Have you ever been in love? I know it seems like a strange question, but let me explain.

In any sort of relationship, whether it be a campaign or a romance, disagreements will exist and there will be differences of opinion and miscommunication.

The way in which these problems are approached speaks to the health and character of the individual involved, and to me the way that Obama handles these differences is what demonstrates that he has the judgement and character to be president of the United States.

In marriage, these issues may lead to a life long union, or a snarky and money sucking divorce.

Certainly Obama has been critical of Hilary Rodham Clinton, and he's also praised her. At no time has he personally insulted her or intentionally hurt her feelings. So to say that he's going to blister her today is just not accurate, and seems to suggest that Obama is the type of person that blisters people. He isn't.

That doesn't mean he agrees with Hilary Clinton's agenda. It means that he has a health approach to his relationships, and is a role model for all the divorcees in the world.

I think it can also be said that Barack has never twisted or distorted any of Hillary's statements, or her record as a whole.

In contrast, the Clintons just will not let go of this one remark that Obama made in 1994, which they insist upon misconstruing as support for Bush's war policy. As with so many other matters, large and small, this is the kind of thing one expects from Republicans.

Yeah, I know, electoral politics is a rough game, and the Clintons are fighters, and maybe that's a good thing in some ways. But Barack isn't playing the game that way, and he's winning anyway (I hope).

Hillary Clinton's ad is no fear-mongering. This is deceptive spin.

Cult leader Obama's ad gives an irrelevant response to Hillary Clinton's perfectly legitimate ad. His counter ad is no response to Hillary Clinton's legitimate ad.

Cult leader Obama's ad is slamming and disparaging the military that is serving in Iraq. Instead of hitting at Sen. Clinton with his misrepresentation on her about the Iraq war, he is bashing the patriotic military that is serving in Iraq.

Cult leader Obama is unqualified to be commander in chief when he is skewering the military in Iraq with his false attacks on Sen. Clinton. Cult leader Obama should do the patriotic thing and pull his unpatriotic ad that batters the military in Iraq.

liam - your response to my post re: idiotic was outstanding. excellent news, for ME!

Real change is not supporting No Child Left Behind, voting for it in committee, serving as a Senate Conferee on the bill, and voting for it on final passage, and then saying you will abolish it when you are running for President.

She voted for George W. Bush's Iragmire, and then claimed that he had duped her.

I sure hope that she will not have to deal with any world leaders who are as smart as George W. Bush or we will all be in deep doodoo!

Better set up a phone screening firewall, so that she only takes emergency phone calls from people who are dumber that George W. Bush or Hillary will get taken to the cleaners again and again.

Exactly where has Hillary's "experience" made her so qualified to be commander in chief? Is it her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee which has turned a blind-eye to horrendous defense contractor profiteering? Is it being in the White House that ignored Al Quaida for 8 years? Is it in her keen assessment of the threat posed by Iraq and her vote to give Bush authority to start a pre-emptive, needless war?

Hillary's campaign and supporters continue to accuse the media of going soft on Obama. What about Hillary's claims of experience and capaicty to lead on "day one." What exactly is the evidence for that? Where is the media scrutiny of Hillary's bizarre claims of experience?

"Cult leader Obama" did this

"Cult leader Obama" did that

put the koolaide down and step away from the repuglitards

Greg Sargent in an earlier post about media fairness linked to a NYT collaborated poll completed 2-24-08. That poll has some interesting findings down in the weeds.

Obama scored higher than Clinton across the board in positive likelihood of being effective as a Commander in Chief.
Very likely effectiveness: 1] all voters [3 points higher], and 2] dem voters [4 points higher]
Somewhat likely effectiveness : 1]all voters [12 points higher], and 2] dem voters [5 points higher].

Clinton scored higher, i.e., worse, than Obama in the negative categories regarding likelihood of being effective as a Commander in Chief.
Not to likely effectiveness: 1] all voters [6 points higher], and 2] dem voters [6 points higher]
Not at all likely effectiveness: 1] all voters [11 points higher], and 2] dem voters [5 points higher]

Note: roughly a fourth of all respondents [24%] consider Hillary 'not at all' likely to be an effective CinC.

I don't know how Clinton expects to have a debate with John McCain on foreign policy when her policy is starting to sound juts like his. She makes the same argument Lieberman did in 2004: "Republicans won't be able to accuse me of being weak on naional security because I'll be as belligerent as they are." Does anybody in her campaign actually think about what they're saying?

The last thing this country wants or needs for the next 8 years is a president who feels the need to prove how tough she can be instead of how smart she can be.

"Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence", a fictional $2000 prize awarded by Montgomery Burns. The name of the "award" was hastily concocted by Burns on the spot in an attempt to convince Homer to sign a waiver freeing the nuclear plant of all liability for Homer's recently discovered sterility."

This was EXCELLENT NEWS for Homer! Hillary should be so lucky.

What's so stupid about Clinton's attack on Obama over readiness to be "commander in chief" is that if it does succeed in defeating Obama, it frames the upcoming contest in November along the same lines. If Clinton has to run against McCain within the frame of who is best prepared in terms of military experience she loses hands down. In contrast, Obama's frame of change vs entrenched interests and judgement trumping experience seen as purely tenure, then he puts McCain in a grave.

I agree. Clinton is doing more harm than good. It looks more and more that all should can ever hope to achieve, and distantly at that, is a pyrrhic victory over Obama in the primary which leads to a crushing defeat against McCain. Personally, I've had my fill of tragdey, whether Greek or Shakesperean, in the last 7 years.

C'mon Hil, take one for the fuckin' team already.

I hope Clinton digs in and continues her current line of attack on Obama, regardless of what happens in TX and OH. At this point, her attacks are from basically the same direction McCain will attack, and Obama might as well get some practice handling that. If he can't, or if Dem voters decide they'd rather be scared than inspired, then I'm not sure the Democrats deserve to win in November.

Given the brevity of Obama´s record and the fact that he has primarily held legislative positions while serving in public, I think it appropriate to look at the decisions he has made when it was him alone.

For many of us one of the biggest decisions we will make in life is buying a house. Here Obama admits that he did not show good judgement.

I give him points for honesty when he says it was boneheaded, but he did buy a house together with a suspected corrupt backroom operator, and has been less than truthful as the press uncovers the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxyPBmZE69s&NR=1

Oslojack,
On the one hand, we have a 'boneheaded' decision to buy one's first house by involving someone long involved in real estate [Rezco] who later is indicted for unrelated matters....boneheaded for its 'appearance' only, let me add.

On the other hand, we have a U.S. Senator who was urged by Bob Graham to read the full NIE before voting on 'the most important vote of her career', but who failed to do that homework, and voted anyway to enable Bush's push to war. The problem for Hillary was that she HERSELF, 'alone', would have had to go to the safe room at the Capitol to read the 90 page full NIE, as her staff were not allowed to do so for her. It really was up to 'her alone' to do due diligence.

Which 'all alone' decision was more boneheaded? Which boneheadedness affects you and the country the most?