"Ahhh...but you conveniently forget that immediately after the weakness answers in the debate (where Obama answered truthfully instead of canned answers) Hillary went on the attack the very next day, slamming Obama on his organizational skills because he loses papers. His so called "mocking" was in response to her attack. It consisted of telling people he answered honestly and gave a perfect analogy of how not only he, but the rest of the country felt about the others canned comments."

So he goes and mocks John Edwards, because Hillary attacked him? That makes perfect sense. Lets think of things this way then, Hillary mocking him was in response to him mocking John Edwards, which by your reasoning now makes it perfectly ok. Tit for tat politics, which I thought St. Obama was running against, Guess I was wrong.

"Big Difference."

Yeah, when Obama does it, it's ok. You're right, that is a big difference.

Posted at February 25, 2008 2:42 PM in response to 2:38 PM Feb. 24, 2008 - When The Clinton Campaign Officially Ends

The comment was a Democrat mocking another democrat, is that not what happened there? Its funny, but when St. Obama does it people like to try and justify it somehow. If I wanted to I could stop and find some justification for what Hillary did, but lets just keep things simple, and call things what they are.

Posted at February 25, 2008 2:30 PM in response to 2:38 PM Feb. 24, 2008 - When The Clinton Campaign Officially Ends

" Name me some examples of a Democrat mocking another Democrat."

Hows this one?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8321.html

Posted at February 25, 2008 5:43 AM in response to 2:38 PM Feb. 24, 2008 - When The Clinton Campaign Officially Ends

How is this any different than Obama mocking Clinton and Edwards on their "weakness" answers? How many times and how long has he been doing that?

Posted at February 25, 2008 5:33 AM in response to 2:38 PM Feb. 24, 2008 - When The Clinton Campaign Officially Ends

What else is there to say? His reasons for doing one vs not doing the other make no sense, just bad political spinning. Feel free to explain to us how those two reasons for voting actually make sense.

Posted at February 16, 2008 10:00 PM in response to Senator Boxer defends Obama on Exelon - Again, no one notices.

I dont know, his endorsement would really only help Hill before then, I think, Wisconsin in particular. Only real reason t wait would be if hes thinking Obama. Interesting either way.

Posted at February 16, 2008 4:36 PM in response to Edwards watch - "to remain on the fence for the time being"

The bigger issue is Obamas inexperience in ever saying anything close to a pledge. Blunders like this, which look like hes backing out of an "ethical stance" can cost us the general.

Posted at February 16, 2008 4:33 PM in response to McCain - Afraid of Obama's Donor Army - Calls for Obama to Use Public Financing

Wasnt Obamas rationale for not voting for the Credit rate cap was because it was a weak bill?

Politics as usual indeed.

Posted at February 16, 2008 4:29 PM in response to Senator Boxer defends Obama on Exelon - Again, no one notices.

There's not much difference in money or campaign work, each one creates "payback" situations. Campaign work more than money. You can always go and get $2000 from someone else, but not just anyone is going to have the experience and network contacts that lobbyists can provide to a campaign.

Posted at February 16, 2008 2:57 PM in response to Obama & Politics As Usual

It is the process. Saying othrwise is like saying baseball games should end in the 8th inning.

Posted at February 16, 2008 2:51 PM in response to Howard Dean On Super-Delegates: "Their role is to exercise their best judgment"