Political Punch

nafta, china--was obama in office then? cuz he was in the senate when he voted to fund the iraq war all those times. how was he so against the war if he kept voting that way? the only time he voted against funding was when edwards started to put the pressure on the democrats to stand their ground against bush.

obama is trying his best to woo the union votes after losing the union support. he's biting himself in the behind. it's sour grapes, and a holier-than-thou attitude that will not work.

"if seeing is right, then look where you're at."

It's a primary campaign. Obama was definitely talking about his two chief opponents, Clinton and Edwards. He was doing what all primary campaigners do... criticize their "opponent" without using their name.

When has it ever been any differently, in a tight race, two days before Iowa?

I guess I keep failing to understand what's so awful about the Democratic candidates using Campaign 101 out on the trail. TO me, the increasingly bitter Huckabee-Romney race is the only old-school nasty game in town.

Obama was clearly talking about how the GOP bludgeoned the Democrats with the flip-flopper nonsense. Putting something up against that where they can be labeled as a flip-flopper is walking off a cliff. Clinton and Edwards face this.

First, Sen. Obama respects Senator Kerry, so on that level alone this whole premise is wrong.
Second, I and many other people thought Senator Kerry ran a good campaign in 2004 and were saddened by his close loss. Many people still support him and continue to follow his career. Obama is aware of Senator Kerry's 3 million plus e-mail list of supporters and I doubt he would consider saying anything that would anger them.
Third, Obama need not involve Senator Kerry in order to comment on Edwards negatively. Edwards didn't come through in 2004- he didn't behave like a VP candidate is suppose to. He let alot of people down and has been self-serving and has changed so many of his positions on issues- not because of changing amendments on bills but simply because he thinks telling people what they want to hear and making empty promises will get him elected.
So you see, there is no need to drag Senator Kerry into this.

The dollar slid across the board on Friday as data showing a 9 percent decline in sales of new U.S. homes last month heightened concern about the economy, putting the greenback on track for its worst week in more than a year.
The housing report, which was weaker than economists had expected, also bolstered the case for more Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in 2008. Earlier this week, the S&P/Case-Shiller index showed a record decline in U.S. home prices in October.

This is what's happening to YOUR house. All the 'money' and 'equity' you though you had saved - eliminated! The equtiy through falling house prices - and the money because we are DEBASING OUR CURRENCY. That low fed rate you're reading about gets created by printing money and lending it to people. With more money, the money YOU have is worth LESS. So your money is worth less and your property is worth less - where can you turn to keep ahead of inflation? I think you BETTER turn to Dr. Paul. He's the ONLY one running that has a HOPE of being able to deal with this.

Obama has really turned out to be quite the arrogant scoundrel. The biggest flip flop of all is Obama's campaign theme: The politics of hope. His attacks of late are pathetic and if this is his version of hope, I say no thank you.

Edwards is a lot better at staying on message than Kerry ever was. Despite shifting his stances on some positions, he's put out detailed plans and policies before any candidate. Obama's environmental policy looks like Edwards and Clinton's universal healthcare policy looks a lot like Edwards' plan as well. He's been a leader on bringing issues to the forefront of this campaign and just because Obama hardly has a record doesn't make him any better than the people who were in a position to cast a vote in the first place. Oh and the Illinois State legislature doesn't count.

The ability to distinguish between an attack and when someone points out difference between them is important.

It's fair to point out difference in issues, and make an argument as to why a candidate's plan is better than the others, but it's not okay to engage in personal attacks - ie. name calling.

I was not aware that Edwards did not vote as the way he has passionately made an argument for.

It boils down to trust. Who do you trust to deliver what he says he will deliver?

I remember President Clinton went on national television - look straight in the eyes of the American people and say 'I did not have sex with that woman', and then I found out later, he did have sex with that woman. I have a hard time believing in what he says these days, although overall, I think he has been a good president and represents this country well.

Tahni,

I am only going to point this out to you once more. I'm sorry if you do not understand the chart, but the numbers you cite are not the "latest figures." The numbers you cite are AVERAGES. They do not represent ANY particular poll. They are a cumulative average of ALL the polls to this point. The MOST RECENT polls are the ones immediately below the average (the number you keep citing). And the MOST RECENT polls are the ones I have referenced.

I have a great deal of respect for Edwards but what Obama says is true. Obama has been consistent all through his political career. That is the point that needs to be made. John Edwards has spent an awful lot of time apologizing for his record. That doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in his ability to withstand a national election..or in his ability to make the right decisions as president.

Drawing a distinction between candidates is what campaigns are all about. When unbiased, careful research and analysis is done, Obama just towers above the others.

I find it sad how pundits and opposition candidates really have to stretch or out-and-out lie to find something to attack the man on. That everyone needs to try so hard is yet another measure of his integrity and electabilitiy.

It is very easy to mistake one's words in politics. I believe that this article is true in that regard. Like all Presidential nominee's, there will be "word battles", however, thats what needs to change. Ideally no president should have to rip on another candidate, but sadly, they do, good, bad, or otherwise. But the main point of my article is this: Do you really think that Obama would not like Edwards as VP? I believe that those quotes were a little misleading.... and get this I am republican from Iowa!

Correction:
Obama did not vote on Iran.
Hillary did. Supported Bush. Obama: Absent!

He has missed over 80% of votes since September.
He has been US Senator for two and half years, and has been absent more times than any other Senator.
Where is he getting his experience? Giving speeches on the campaign trail?
Should he not lending his voice on the Senate floor supporting causes Democrats are for?

I am still trying to find out what Obama means about change? Hiring Hillary, is change?
Does he mean change from one skin color to a different one?
What hope? Hope for what?
Does he mean America will become color blind if he becomes president?

The ship of state needs to change direction. The wealth of the nation has been concentrating on the top one to two per cent of the population.
What characterizes a third world nation: Wealth at the top, a very small or non existing middle class. No labor unions.
The dollar shrinking in value.
Are we moving into a third world nation ranking?

From what I have heard or read, Edwards is the only one addressing this situation.

Double J wrote:

The numbers you have cited are the AVERAGES at this point. As averages they are inflated in Edwards’s case because his numbers 3-4 weeks ago were much higher. If you look at the MOST RECENT polls, this is what you find:

Both Obama and Edwards lose to McCain by the same margin,

Obama beats Rudy by 9 while Edwards loses to Rudy (or is essentially tied),

Obama beats Huckabee by 9 while Edwards beats Huck by a smaller margin,

Obama beats Romney by 18 while Edwards beats Romney by a smaller margin.

Double J,

I think you need to review the RealClearPolitics poll results. I have quoted latest figures which are like these:
Edwards-46.7%
McCain-43%

Edwards-53%
Romney-36.5%

Edwards-53%
Huckabee-37.7%

Edwards-47%
Rudy-43.3%

McCain-45%
Obama-45%

Jake, you write: "UPDATE: I understand some of you disagree with my take....so please explain to me whom Sen. Obama was talking about."

Well, about Edwards, of course. Edwards *was* part of the ticket in the general election in 2004.

As for the phrase "always causes us problems in general elections," that's "elections" plural. That's "always," as in not a singular event. So look beyond the swift-boating of Kerry to prior campaigns. If you think neither Gore nor Clinton was tarred with the flip-flopping brush, you weren't paying enough attention to internet message boards and chat rooms or talk radio. Both candidates were slathered with that same tar on numerous issues.

IMO, Obama would do well to make flip-flopping a non-issue. What he seems not to realize is that intra-party attacks during primary season always cause problems in the general election, to echo his own phrase. He's also buying into the naive conventional wisdom among the electorate that does in nearly every senator who runs for president - the idea that stasis is the optimum condition for any individual and the prime requisite for a presidential candidate. People *need* to be flexible as they acquire new information.

The fact that he seems not to grasp these concepts does not bode well for Obama's career in the Senate. The very nature of the body is compromise. The ability to compromise without compromising one's core is what makes a great senator.

And Jake, it seems unlikely that the candidates are scrambling for Kerry's endorsement. Do you not remember the Democratic candidates fleeing from scheduled campaign appearances with Kerry in 2006 after his little gaffe?

Obama is right. If Edwards cared so much about ordinary people, why did he not fight for them when he was in the Senate. His position on virtually everyone of the major issues - NAFTA, Iraq is different from his position when he was in the Senate. How can we trust that he is authentic?

Obama on the fact has actually worked on bills for campaign finance reform, government transparency and so forth. He actually gave up a lucrative career to fight for ordinary people. This makes him a lot more credible to me.

A person’s view on life and political issues changes and evolves with life and one’s understanding of life. That is natural. Only those who do not have experience in life do not change their positions in life and politics. That is Obama!

I can’t believe that Obama is talking about the electability of John Edwards.

For John Edwards, there are at least 50% of Americans will vote for him, that is more than enough to win a general election, considering the country is so polarized.

As for Obama, more than 62% of people will NOT vote for a black and more than 87% of people will NOT vote for someone with a muslim heritage in a general election. What is his electability?

People surrounding Obama and the media are not helping him. They put so much hype into his head that made him totally lost sense of reality. Hopefully, he will be the one who would learn most after the primary. Media can crush him faster than they created him.

Poor thing. Obama really needs to get some experience.

Tahini –

The numbers you have cited are the AVERAGES at this point. As averages they are inflated in Edwards’s case because his numbers 3-4 weeks ago were much higher. If you look at the MOST RECENT polls, this is what you find:

Both Obama and Edwards lose to McCain by the same margin,

Obama beats Rudy by 9 while Edwards loses to Rudy (or is essentially tied),

Obama beats Huckabee by 9 while Edwards beats Huck by a smaller margin,

Obama beats Romney by 18 while Edwards beats Romney by a smaller margin.

I wouldn’t mind having Edwards win the general election, and I’m not suggesting that he can’t. I’m merely pointing out that his formerly large leads in the head-to-heads have dissipated; and that Obama’s recent claim is accurate based on the most recent polling.

Vote Edward = Vote for Hillary Clinton

Vote Edward = Vote for Hillary Clinton

Vote Edward = Vote for Hillary Clinton

Simply because, Edwards campaign is modeled for an astounding triamph in Iowa. But this will never be as the poll shows clearly it will be close. But a win for Obama might be the end of Clinton dynasty. Wake up Iowans.

Can someone who is supporting Obama be specific about "politics of hope", "change", "hope for all"..? Are these not just buzzwords? Presidency is not equal to giving an eloquent speech!
And what about stand on the real issues? Why is Obama not supporting universal healthcare? Obama supporters should read Paul Krugman at least once to understand what their candidate is standing for? Obama has taken positions contrary to common man's expectations.

THIS IS A FRIENDLY INVITATION TO SEN. HILLARY CLINTON

The IOWA caucuses goers are just a week away for making their final decision about the hopeful each one chooses. I implore Sen. Hillary Clinton to play her Experience trump Card, by making available on the WEB for US citizens a paper of two pages summing up:
• HER RESUMÉ ILLUSTRATING HER EXPERIENCES AS LAWYER, BEFORE AND DURING HER HUSBAND GOVERNISHIP
• HER PERSONAL PRE- US SENATE, STATE OR NATIONAL OR FIRSTLADY POLITICAL EXPERIENCE
• HER PERSONAL SENATE’S YEARS EXPERIENCE

For what concerns the Bill Clinton’s labelling Obama as too green, it is necessary to briefly expatiate on such topic. Bill Clinton did not mean that Obama is unripe or too young, incompetent to become president, but he used the metaphoric racist bigotry, a glass ceiling for black person who would never be allowed to confidently stride toward a promising future in the United States of America . Let me take back Clinton to the time when Rev. Jesse Jackson Senior, _ who had the best experience in terms of politics and civil rights movement _ was campaigning for the nomination by the democratic candidacy for the US presidency, for him the issue had never been EXPERIENCE. He was made to understand that the time was still not ripe for Black presidency. When General Colin Powell had tried to take the same path, he was swiftly scared to a point by the same cynicism and bigotry that he even dropped his drive before starting it.
For what concerns Bill Clinton’s consideration of Barack Obama as too green to become a US President, I’m kindly inviting him and her wife to cogitate the following French wisdom:
Aux âmes bien nées, la valeur n’attend point le nombre des années.
Roughly translated it goes as:
For gifted souls, the core value never waits for the number of years.
If, mistakenly she self-appropriated the two terms of her husband in the White House, every caucus-goer or voter who chooses Sen. Hillary Clinton should be reminded that he or she is choosing the “Siamese Clinton couple” for a THIRD TERM in THE WHITE HOUSE. Electing Barack Obama will open the door for change and of Hope for all.

Double J wrote:

The poll you cite from CNN is from Dec 6-9; there are at least *five* more recent polls that prove what Obama claims. Obama wasn’t making this claim three weeks ago. Also, you are citing only one poll; if you look at the averages of multiple polls, Obama is correct. The best source is RealClearPolitics because they keep a running average of multiple polls. By the way, CNN surveyed, according to their press release, “1002 adult Americans,” whereas others have polled *likely voters,* and I think that makes the other polls slightly more valid.

Double J,

Here's Edwards numbers from RealClearPolitics:

Edwards-46.7%
McCain-43%

Edwards-53%
Romney-36.5%

Edwards-53%
Huckabee-37.7%

Edwards-47%
Rudy-43.3%

McCain-45%
Obama-45%

Obama is not winning in the poll you have asked me to consider.

You tell me, who is beating all GOPs.

I totaly agree with the author.. it is high time that Mr Obama be scrutinized of his nasty sly commnents.. he goes scott free with his negative comments while trying to maintain his positive image.. HE IS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE NEGATIVE CAMPAING BY STARTTING TO ATTACK HILLARY.. AND NOW JOHN.. I DONT TRUST A PERSON WHO JUST VOTES "PRESENT" .. MR OBAMA WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE YOU VOTE ON ISSUE AND NOT JUST TALK.. IT IS EASY TO TALK THE TALK THAT HE ALWAYS DOES ...

Hammo –

I read your post analyzing the various candidates. I don’t see where you make the case Edwards has “a much better chance” than Obama in a general election. Besides the fact that Obama actually fares a little better in the head-to-head polls (see my post below), Edwards has the problem of having run in 2004. I’m sorry to say, that in many people’s minds means he would be another dud. For example, you cite that he is “a southern white male” and therefore has certain advantages. We know that Kerry added Edwards to the ticket in order to be competitive in the South, and we also know that the Kerry-Edwards ticket did not carry Southern states, not even Edwards’ home state of North Carolina. Edwards also got his clock cleaned in his one debate with Dick Cheney. As inexperienced as Obama is, he at least is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Edwards has but one six year Senate term as his *entire* political resume, and he spent the last two of those years running for higher office.

Does anyone believe that the percieved 'flip-flopping' of Kerry was NOT a problem in the 2004 election? It doesn't matter if Kerry was or wasn't; what matters is if the 2008 nominee will have to go through that again. This article was written to stir up trouble instead of focusing on how/why this is a true strength of Obama in a general election and why this could be problematic for his Democratic opponents.

Tahni –

The poll you cite from CNN is from Dec 6-9; there are at least *five* more recent polls that prove what Obama claims. Obama wasn’t making this claim three weeks ago. Also, you are citing only one poll; if you look at the averages of multiple polls, Obama is correct. The best source is RealClearPolitics because they keep a running average of multiple polls. By the way, CNN surveyed, according to their press release, “1002 adult Americans,” whereas others have polled *likely voters,* and I think that makes the other polls slightly more valid.

What a stretch! Trying to provoke an argument between Obama and Kerry. It's clear to one with no axe to grind (no article to sell) that Obama is talking about Edwards and the weakness the GOP will exploit in the general election; i.e., his inconsistency. Obama is also right about Clinton.

This is definitive that Barack was comparing Edwards to Kerry? Yeah right. How about a move by a site to attempt to capture voters who might have been pro-Kerry the last time around and give reason to endorse Edwards. Phony articles like this on the web...gimme a break.

Edwards has a much better chance of winning in a general election than Obama, for a variety of reasons. More on this in the article: "Democrats risk self-sabotage in presidential race ... again"

"John Edwards has clawed his way into contention to win Iowa's caucuses on Thursday in the first vote for the Democratic presidential nomination, gaining strength as rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lost ground, according to a new McClatchy-MSNBC poll."

On the Democratic side, the race is about as close as it can get, but keep an eye on Edwards," said Brad Coker of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which conducted the survey. "Edwards has really moved up since our last poll. Obama and Clinton have each slipped a little bit."

The new survey, taken Dec. 26-28, came three weeks after the initial Dec. 3-6 poll.

Iowa poll results

Among Democrats:

* Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has the support of 24 percent.

* Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has 23 percent.

* Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has 22 percent.

* Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has 12 percent.

* Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware has 8 percent.

* Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut has 2 percent.

* Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has 1 percent.

* Undecided: 8 percent.

America is a Democracy - We are not a Monarchy.
Wiser folks than us - saw to it long ago, that we be fortunate enough to realize this life blessing.
Nepotism may be fine for the old-corner-store but it will only serve to fail us again -as it has, most resoundingly, for the entirety of this millennium.

Voting for the worst policy decision in our life times does not make one 'experienced'. It -IS- high time America elected a woman as commander-in-chief. When a self made woman of conviction and talent stands up and demonstrates the character that can stand as an example for us all - we should stand behind her - with conviction and fortitude. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She is the spouse of a former and popular President. In a nation, 300 million strong, are we to believe that the person most suited to be the President just happens to be related to the last President ?!
Are we really to believe this is the case ?
Will we make this mistake, again ?

Barack Obama has the strength and certitude to take America in a new and positive direction - a direction that our evolving nation - being formed all around us all as we pass through our daily lives - very much is in need of. There really is an immediacy of the 'now' that we all share. We truly must begin to think big again and to face the immense challenges before us in brave and selfless ways again - like those people in the old faded photographs on our walls did - for us. It really is time to wake up again America. The time is, most certainly, now.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

I think you're missing the point Jake. It's that you and the media focus on inconsequential stuff like this and ignore substantive issues.

The question is why you chose to write an article about this instead of looking at Edwards' record to see what flip-flops if any he's committed.

You guys can't hide behind the excuse that Obama and Clinton are the frontrunners. Edwards is right there with them, perhaps the favorite in Iowa. And the media is giving him a free ride.

DTD wrote: He has NO money and NO organization, so voting for Edwards is effectively voting for Clinton in the long-term. The only thing an Iowa win for Edwards will do is remove Obama, but it certainly is not going to help him in any other state where he can not compete with Clinton. Think people!

DTD,

Think about it: Kerry was also in a similar position. But once he got Iowa, he got all the support, the money and the nomination.

Since he's apparently clueless, Obama's camp should coach him in the importance of placing your hand over your heart when our national anthem is played. Go back to school, Barack, and be sure to enroll in Patriotism 101.

My other comment was removed, I suppose because the moderator didn't like that I suggested that Jake had to reach a bit too far to draw, what in my mind seems to be, a conclusion pulled somewhere out of left field. It still seems to me that Jake's opinion on Obama's comments had an element of "spin" to it. Maybe because he personally does not prefer Obama, and is trying to do what one with journalistic power may be tempted to do; sway people to see things his way... but maybe this time, a bit unfairly.
Obama has been consistent in his approach throughout this campaign, if only to become a bit tougher when responding to criticism directed toward him. I do NOT think he is the perfect candidate... I do, however, think he will do a fine job as president. And for those who are still undecided for his "lack of experience," consider that is he unequivocally an intellectual and scholar, and a president is made up not only of his own devices, but also of his cabinet. I trust that Obama will be a great stand alone president with an great cabinet.

I have nothing against John Edwards, but I think it's a fair question to ask why are Iowan Democrats so gullable? Yes, they have an accurate history of picking the Democratic nominee, but certainly NOT a winning nominee. For the life of me, I can not understand why they are poised to choose Edwards. Again, I have no problem with Edwards, but he has no chance in hell of securing the nomination let alone winning the presidency. I defy any Edwards' supporter to tell me who is base is and what chance he has of peeling off female, African American and Latino voters from Clinton. NONE!!! He has NO money and NO organization, so voting for Edwards is effectively voting for Clinton in the long-term. The only thing an Iowa win for Edwards will do is remove Obama, but it certainly is not going to help him in any other state where he can not compete with Clinton. Think people!

Unfortunately Obama is not only losing votes but also respect. He has resorted to lies for the sake of votes! I did not expect this from him. In more than one national polls Edwards is the only candidate who is beating all GOP hopefuls with a wide margin. One example in Dec:

Additional results from the most recent CNN/Opinion Research national survey of 912 registered voters (conducted 12/6 through 12/9) finds:

General Election Match-ups:

McCain 50%, Clinton 48%
Clinton 51%, Giuliani 45%
Clinton 54%, Huckabee 44%
Clinton 54%, Romney 43%

Obama 48%, McCain 48%
Obama 52%, Giuliani 45%
Obama 54%, Romney 41%
Obama 55%, Huckabee 40%

Edwards 52%, McCain 44%
Edwards 53%, Giuliani 44%
Edwards 59%, Romney 37%
Edwards 60%, Huckabee 35%

How can Obama says he is able to beat Republicans, and not Edwards?

It's sad, but more and more it seems, Obama only knows how to give a good speech.

Exactly laurie,

In fact, we've even seen articles about Obama's minor changes on topics from when he started his State Senate terms, but nothing about Edwards' huge reversals on a number of issues.

It's almost like they want us to nominate Edwards so they can start writing the articles about his flip-flopping and help elect a Republican.

Why not report on the substance - has Edwards significantly changed his positions -rather than imagining some irrelevant put down comparison. Watch a bit from an interview with Edwards did with Charly Rose for another recent example of his shifting positions. To paraphrase Edwards: everyone's voices should be heard, including big multinational corporations. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we should exclude them.

What you are inferring is not "clear" at all. You are reading way too much into that statement. If you applied that sort of logic to everyday life, you would sound like a conspiracy theorist.

If I followed the same logic, I could say that when Clinton and Edwards say they are more electable than Obama, they are clearly referring to Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as having failed to secure the Democratic nomination in the past because they were black, alluding to the fact that Obama will face the same fate.

I thought that Barack was going to run a campaign different from all the smear campaigns in the past. That sure isn't happening which supports my position that all candidates will do anything to get a vote. One day he pulls the race card, the next the idea of hope and change which is what exactly, and the next he attacks those in his own party, etc. It may be that he did not vote on many issues, but is that good? It seems when he is in the hot seat he does't vote at all. What is up with that? He is opposed to a war he thought was unnecessary and instead would have supported invading Pakistan. Would that have made that region of the world any more stable? I doubt it. Would we have gotten OBL. I doubt it. So most likely that invasion would have been foolish also EXCEPT that Pakistan does have nukes whereas Iraq did not. Every candidate has a big mouth when they run spouting all sorts of promises and change and folks look at reality. The dems took over the house and senate and exactly what CHANGE has occurred? You know, people can bash Rudy all they want but having grown up in NJ I can tell you that NYC CHANGED A LOT when Rudy took over. He did make things happen which is way more than most elected officials can brag about especially this present house and senate.

Obama's stump speech is sounding more and more like Edwards stump speech. It was just two weeks ago he was the candidate of hope now he is the candidate of desperation. It seems to me that Obama is more of a follower than a leader. He had to follow Edwards QUE to go after Hillary in the debates, now he is copying Edwards stump speech almost word for word. The Lobbyist will lead Obama and this country into the river.

I am for Edwards, he would be the best Democratic Candidate who could go up against any Republican. If Obama thinks that Edwards is like Kerry in the sense that Edwards would lay over and die under Republican attacks, well Obama is living in a dream world. Edwards has already proven he is the strongest of all the Democratic Candidates. Edwards is a fighter.

You may be reading a bit too much into this. Obama is merely stating the truth about Edwards' record (for better or worse, he has changed his mind a lot in the past 4 years) and the probability that anyone seen as "flip-flopping" will get trashed in the general. Not really a direct comparisaon to Kerry...

What do I think?

I think you're wrong about Obama and wrong about Edwards. Stop trying so hard to stir up a fight among those candidates supporters. Every column you write you try to pit one group against the other. Enough!

Obama's message has been guided by the prevailing winds of the moment. The only resonable conclusion is that Obama is willing to do anything to get votes, even if he has to compromise his own personal values. It was just a few weeks ago Obama was saying we need to sit down at the table and negotiate with lobbyist, and now he is sounding more and more like Edwards, using the same populist message of Senator Edwards and often using the exact same words of Senator Edwards. Edwards message has been the same from day one of his campaign.This is not the first time that Obama has followed the lead of Edwards. John was the first to go after Hillary in an aggressive manner. This aggressive nature of Edwards gave Obama the courage to do the same.

My question is, does Obama have any core values ? Is he willing to do anything and say anything to get elected ? It seems to me he is taking a page out of Hillary's play book, to get elected at all cost and willing to follow prevailing winds of the moment and to do and say anything to achieve your goal.

We need a president that is sincere, passionate,trustworthy,smart, and a born leader like John Edwards. Certainly we do not need a follower like Obama.

'change' 'change' 'change' - could obama be a bit more specific - change is not always for the better and some things require change while some are good as they are - could obama tell us which - change is a coin toss phrase - as easily bad news as good and even change is shall we say changable -

What I'm wondering is why the media hasn't written any stories about Edwards' flip-flopping?
That's a major story that would have already been written a thousand times had it concerned Clinton or Obama.
Why is Edwards getting a free ride?

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright. "Senator Clinton has been in refugee camps, clinics, orphanages, and villages all around the world, including places where tea is not the usual drink. In addition to these experiences she has met with world leaders and has known many of them for years. I have been with her on many of these occasions, and it is this combination of experience and understanding that sets her apart from the field, and why I am supporting her for President."

Once again obama caught lieing, Obama falsely claimed that he was the only candidate who beat every Republican in recent polls: I am the only candidate who beats every single one of the Republican candidates. I beat Giuliani, I beat McCain, I beat Romney, I beat Thompson, I beat Huckabee, I beat 'em all. I beat them all…John Edwards doesn't beat them all. Recent polls contradict his claims.The item cites Fox News and CNN polls showing Obama would lose to Republicans, polls showing Clinton would beat Republican candidates.But the Fact Hub item didn't seem to affect Obama, who just repeated his stump line that he is "in the strongest position" for a general election.

Clinton endorsed tonight from the Concord Monitor, which will say in tomorrow's paper: "Clinton's ambitious to-do list for her first few weeks in office gives us confidence that her priorities are right and that she would act swiftly to make a positive difference

HE IS THE BIGGEST FLIP FLOPPER THIS ELECTION…RESEARCH HIS PAST!!!His campaign is in a panic! He has gone completely negative!!! As he slipps further in the polls as predicted he would do. He doing same type stuff he bashed Clinton for when defending herself from the good ole boys club. Obama isn’t handling pressure too well; everyone is speaking for him, Oprah, Michelle, and the foolish Axelrod, What are his stands on important issues? No one knows? The media has been given him the golden boy treatment until NOW the voters have had enough of it and begin researching and posting his lack of experience and bad judgment, well, when he was present to even make a judgment! Can you imagine what he would do during a crisis in the White House! SEND THIS GUY BACK TO ILL!! IMMEDIATELY

NO more Clinton dynasty, McCain's Politics of Fear, Edward's Phony tactics and corrupted Health Industry.

ITS SICKENING.

Also its time to end 20 years of Clinton/Bush political
dynasty.

!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!

Hillary Clinton Voted for War on Iraq.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.

Hillary Clinton recently labelled Iran as a terrorist country.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.

Hillary Clinton supported Bush on aid to Pakistan for wrong reasons.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.

BARACK OBAMA's JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY's WRONG EXPERIENCE.

!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!

Edwards has taken more positions on substantive issues than a Thai hooker. That has nothing to do with anyone other than John Edwards.