This is what had to be done. Hillary simply isn't electable when most Americans don't trust her.

I think this is a dangerous approach, especially in light of the fact that Obama had not exactly been the most forthcoming of individuals in regards to the Rezko affair and this Wright ordeal.

The Politics of Hope do not necessarily translate to the Politics of Nice.

Plouffe said. "The American people are not going to elect someone who isn't seen as honest and trustworthy

The only way that Hillary can win the nomination without fracturing the party, and losing in November, is to win more selected delegates than Senator Obama.

That is the only way. If Senator Obama goes to the convention with more selected delegates than Hillary then he is the rightful nominee.

All this nonsense about how Hillary would be more electable in November is pointless. There is no way to prove that. If she does not win the most selected delegates, then she will go to the convention as the loser. We do not send the loser of the semi-final match on to the championship bout. It is an absurd notion.

Just a little reality check for all those who may be buying into the Hillary, as a winner, spin coming from her camp.

Iowa, Iowa, Iowa.

She had every advantage in that State, and had an enormous lead over the rest of the field. She finished up in third place. Senator Obama beat the odds on favorite, Hillary, and she did not even come in second.

She has squandered huge leads in many states. Look at how far ahead she was in Texas, just weeks before the held their primary.

To the winner belong the spoils. This is America. We do not hold Coronations here to Crown some loser.

To the winner belongs the spoils, and to the spoiler belongs the whines.

So far, sounds more like a hit on the voters' perception of her honesty and trustworthiness than a hit on her actual honesty and trustworthiness.

I'm not saying her honesty and trustworthiness aren't fair game, nor am I saying Obama's team has never hit her on that before. I'm just saying that that's a different argument than they seem to be saying here.

High levels of people who think Hillary is not trustworthy and lacks credibility and character are are constants going back to the early pre-announcment polls and those numbers have never really improved. In an election against Straight Talkin' Hero John McCain, he who's veracity and integrity are beyond question by the MSM, and who the MSM will actively protect against any such attack, those numbers, and the perception that fuels them, are potentially disasterous and she has done absolutely nothing to address that perception. On the contrary, every time she puts Wolfson and Penn out in front of the media to feed the rabble (as they evidently think of the voters) yet another chain of self-evident whoppers that contradict what they said last week, she only has only reinforced that perception.

They're just noting what the polls are saying:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105097/Perceived-Honesty-Gap-Clinton-Versus- Obama-McCain.aspx

i.e., she's unelectable

There's a memo. Halperin has it on his site.

Unlike the flimsy "experience" attack, Obama is actually honest and trustworthy himself, so this is a good line for him to push. Well done.

Also, this shows Obama is looking ahead to the GE battle (unlike HRC with her "experience" line, which she would loose in 20 seconds flat to McCain). Very presidential. Very smart.

The fact that HRC is willing to do anything, no matter how dirty, to get the win says a lot about the blind ambition she holds, which is what the founding fathers warned about. The made the presidential selection process specifically to weed out candidates like HRC.

Obama should continue to point this out every day until she croaks.

Hillary Clinton is a "typical white person", that's all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKosxf914ps

Obama lied about what he heard of Rev. Wright on Friday vs. his later comments. Oh, today's Rasmussen Polls are out and Senator Obama is a UNFAV 50% FAV 48%.

From the poll:

On Friday, Obama’s favorable ratings remain little changed from recent days—48% favorable, 50% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. The number with a Very Unfavorable opinion of Obama has increased from 26% a week ago to 33% today.

O'Dochartaigh said: "I think this is a dangerous approach, especially in light of the fact that Obama had not exactly been the most forthcoming of individuals in regards to the Rezko affair and this Wright ordeal."

That is completely and demonstrably false, especially when it comes to Rezko. Take a look at this article from the Chicago Tribune, especially this segment:

"On Friday, Obama sat down with the Tribune and Sun-Times and said, in effect, "ask me anything you want about my dealings with Tony Rezko," the politically connected developer who is now on trial on corruption charges. No shortcuts. No unanswered questions. He answered, patiently and in detail. We can't recall a similar discussion with any political figure."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0320edit1mar20,0,430844.story

No, that's not forthcoming at all.

To quote Elvis Costello, "I used to be disgusted/and now I try to be amused."

It's pretty hilarious how partisans of each side accuse Greg of bias for failing to condemn the election tactics of the other side while reporting on them, in a blog called "Election Central."

To paraphrase the old put-down of comedy-club hecklers ("Yeah, I remember my first beer...") -- yeah, I remember my first campaign...

Get a grip, people. If you think anyone who tells you what the other side is saying is automatically biased, you might as well stick to your campaign's website, where you can see nothing but cheerleading.

Obama met for 90 minutes with reporters from the Chicago Sun Times and Chicago Tribune letting them ask whatever question they want about Rezko. How much more forthcoming do you want him to be?

Yeah, sure. Obama is ahead by 800,000 popular votes and well over 100 delegates, leads that are impossible to erase. But he should step aside.

It's amusing to see Clinton supporters accuse Obama supporters of being immature and brainwashed. Between seeing what's posted here and speaking with people, what strikes me about Clinton supporters is the venom and contempt they hold for Obama and his supporters,the lack of logic behind their opinions, and the amount of propaganda they spout. Talk about a cult.

We know that Obama is currently lying on NAFTA -- there is a memo in Canada to prove that.

Right. Just like there was a memo from 10 Downing Street that "proved" that Iraq could attack London in moments.

Hillary was the equivalent to a senior advisor to Bill -- as policy wonks it is hard to imagine that they didn't debate almost all issues.

That must be where she got the idea that it's normal policy for America to invade a sovereign nation at maximum force level, WITHOUT PROVOCATION.

I mean, that's just the way World affairs are properly handled by nations with integrity.

Polls are showing Obama is losing ground,, now that reality is coming about, and this "man of all men" is showing his true colors, time will tell if he can really get ALL of the dems behind him... I say he can't.
3/21/2008
MEMO: Obama Campaign: Just Words
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: March 21, 2008
RE: Obama Campaign: Just Words

At this point, it’s no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water given the news stories of the last few weeks and is desperate to change the subject.

The ground is shifting away from them and their response?

First, disenfranchise voters - Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

Second, peddle photos of President Clinton shaking hands with Reverend Wright less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race. Well, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president. Stop the presses.

Third, accuse our campaign of having something to do with Senator Obama’s passport file being breached, a reckless charge that has zero merit.

Fourth, continue attacks on Senator Clinton’s character in an effort to implement what the Chicago Tribune called a full assault on her ethics.

Fifth, stonewall the press: no tax returns, no state records, no answers about the inconsistencies in the Rezko story.

So it’s not a pretty sight - it’s all part of a pattern of just words.

Senator Obama talks about voter participation while actively disenfranchising millions.

He calls for high minded debates while practicing lowdown politics.

He promises a different kind of campaign while attacking Hillary’s character.

He promises transparency while hiding basic info and stonewalling the press.

It’s no wonder that Americans are coming to see that for all of his lofty rhetoric, Senator Obama’s candidacy is really just words.

It’s no surprise that Americans are expressing serious doubts about his ability to answer the 3am call.

It’s no wonder that top journalists are calling the Obama campaign desperate, saying that it’s amateur hour in Chicago.

Politics as usual

The sort of foolishness being resorted to by both the Obama and Clinton people, whether over irrelevancies such as his preacher's beliefs or her "character" (code for "she's a bitch who nobody likes") or her schedule as First Lady is a product of the sad truth that they really don't disagree much on any issues. They are the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of corporate centrist Democrats. Their nearly identical positions on issues means that without these stupid criticisms about things that should not be our focus there really is no significant policy difference between them.

Both of them are so invested in playing it safe on the issues (which means they don't want to take "controversial" stands like being a full blown Democrat on health care, the war, protecting our Constitutional rights, etc...)that they prefer these idiotic, demeaning games.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when you consider that whichever of them is nominated and assuming they actually get elected, the outcome in terms of policies and programs will be identical. Unfortunately, that identical outcome will be the usual half-measures and meek attempts at incrementalist change instead of the substantive and meaningful change the entire nation yearns for. A pity really isn't it?

Finally!