He hasn't really relied too heavily on his role in the immigration bill, really I haven't heard him really mention it since Super Tuesday, and it was only brought up a few times, and generally by Ted Kennedy if I remember correctly, who was a major player. Regardless any potential exaggeration on his part was minor.

As opposed to Hillary, who has built her entire campaign around her "exaggerations", or as they are turning out, flat out lies. Obama could have had nothing to do with immigration, and it wouldn't have changed his campaign or this election at all, but if you take away Hillary's fluffed resume with all its stolen credit for things she had nothing to do with, she never would have been a presidential candidate.

Arlen Specter criticizing Obama!?! Imagine...

It is pathetic that MSM papers like WaPO and NYT are fooling the people by highlighting non-issues in an election that is all about grave issues.

And TPM seems to be in cahoots with them to keep the voters deliberately ignorant and uninformed about the candidates' caliber and qualifications.

Dodging sniper fire my ass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y&eurl=http://chivolvo.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=1012&page=14

At last! Some news to sink my gums into!
Arlen what would Bush have done without you?

A republican senator had criticisms in the middle of a general election of the probable Dem. nominee? Holy shit, stop the presees. This is important stuff. Lets put that one in the same pile as "Osama Bin Ladden does not celebrate Christmas".

Next article to post: How the minor fluctuations of a Gallup tracking poll prove some over-arching narrative.

On the bright side (for all those warm and fuzzy political operatives/activists out there), one of the benefits of having two potential Democratic nominees still jousting is the opportunity to use the broad-stroke message they “both embellish” as a tool to defuse the storyline. One could focus on highlighting Senator Specter’s point we all expect candidates will inflate their record and their political importance in X,Y, and Z. Therefore, an operative could argue this really “isn’t a big issue” because “everyone does it”., while at the same time reframing the inquiry to better fit the candidates message.

This need to reframe issues to fit a given candidate’s larger message is anonymously expressed by the former Clinton official’s sincere opinion of Hillary Clinton’s SCHIP campaign rhetoric, while also demonstrated by the Kennedy example of pivot and reappraisal. A central problem in campaign tactics appears to be how to highlight team X and deflate Team Y without abuse, while not bringing attention to team X’s faux pas.
---

.
.

Then again, had more division between the two candidates occurred in the article, or had one candidate been highlighted while the other wasn’t, I assume there would be more comments in the thread. It’s just a hunch, but division or the injustice of a “biased” article or even political gossip seems to paradoxically “unite” people into battle lines more than “balanced” assessment/reports. Hence, the fixation on attacking Specter in the comment thread.

Oh, the travesty of Specter! Oh, the horror!