Political Punch

"People want to have a nominee that’s going to win. So a lot of the things they accepted initially may not hold up. Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator."

Someone should "advise" Mr. Penn that we Independents are independent precisely because we aren't manipulated by spin. It's spin to suggest that Obama's record and position on issues is "most liberal" while Clinton is a virtual Republican. There's very little difference between the two on the issues.

As for me, a veteran white male, Independent former-Republican, I don't give a rats behind about the liberal/conservative labels that people like neocons to use to manipulate people.

I don't give a rip about some guy named Rezko that has no more to do with this campaign than all the convicted Clinton friends and partners-in-crime.

And I don't give a rip about some late-night comedy sketch that has influence over the weaker minds of the world.

Barak has my Independent white male vote in the primary, and the election, and no amount of spin can change that.

The bottom line is Hillary has had much more experience than Barack.

As First Lady she was often accused of doing too much; of being too involved. Now conveniently they are trying to diminish all her experience.

This is just a strategy; the truth is Hillary is the one with much more experience - she is much more qualified.

If she were a man, they would not belittle her experience so much.

Craig is just spinning - they will desperately spin everything they can try to apparently. Hillary never claimed to play a "central" role. Look at exactly what she said. She said she was very involved, (which she was), she said she participated (which she did).

Unfortunatly for Obama voters already knew he wasnt qualified on national defense.Clinton didnt point it out to us.Infact McCain had commented on it after the last debate but it gets all the Obama people foaming at the mouth its like Pelosis comment yesterday.It was Pelosi's opinion that Obama didnt need it pointed out to the republicans honey they already knew it

The only difference between Obama and Hilary is their Gender and Color!! Neither can be compared to the Hero John MCCain!

By Byron York

Greg Craig, the former Clinton White House counsel who is now supporting Barack Obama, has just sent out a letter sharply attacking Hillary Clinton's claims to experience in foreign policy. "Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role," Craig writes. "But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated." Then this:

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

Going down the list of international hotspots from the Clinton years, Craig writes that it is "a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland." Her claim to a role in bringing peace to Bosnia is also unfounded, Craig says. Her claim to have negotiated the flight of refugees from Kosovo "is not true," according to Craig, who quotes Bill Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans as saying, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." And on Rwanda, where Bill and Hillary Clinton have said that she pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops, Craig writes, "There is no evidence…to suggest that this ever happened." Finally, Craig attacks Hillary Clinton's claim that her 1995 speech about women's rights in China also qualifies as foreign policy experience. "It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago," Craig writes, "since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago." Summing up: The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

Source: NRO

Obama has eleven years of experience as an elected official. Hillary Clinton has seven.

More than one quarter of Hillary Clinton supporters would vote for McCain. Clinton has also used tactics, most notably the red phone scare, that are in line with conservative rhetoric. So, yes, there is not much difference between McCain and Clinton. You can expect more of the same with either. More war and more, as a result of war, recession.

So, yes, if you are looking for more or less of the same, go for Clinton or McCain. But remember that a vote for Clinton is a vote for McCain as most conservatives hate the Clintons and as all polls show that Obama is more likely to defeat McCain. They are voting for her now (in Ohio, Texas, Mississippi) to make sure that Obama is not on the ticket since he would be tougher to beat in November. Also be aware that, in the end, you will very likely get the worse of the two choices. More people clearly despise Hillary Clinton on both the conservative and liberal sides than despise McCain for all his faults.

Let me put it another way:

Nancy Pelosi and many who support Barack's campaign are those who can literally afford to have a candidate who is more style than qualifications in the beginning.

I am one of Americans who literally cannot financially afford to wait while such a new and "innovative" administration full of the unknown and inexperience gets it's act together.

I want the most efficient administration possible.

I do want someone was involved in the last Clinton administration, and knows first-hand about all of the changes they made which helped the economy, to make it one of the most socio-economically succesful we've ever had.

In the debates, it was obvious that Hillary is both the most knowledgeable and qualified. That is what I want.

Lauren, It's called opposition research and it's practiced by both parties at all levels (ever heard the LBJ tapes?).

I did not refer to and do not care about the 3am ad. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton has extensive political experience - I believe that her husband does - and that Obama has at least as much experience as Bill Clinton did when he ran for president - if not more.

But I do care quite a lot about statements that Hillary has made that can be spliced directly into Republican campaign ads. I am not alone. I am also not alone in opposing a Clinton/Obama ticket. Today, CNN reported that Nancy Pelosi stated: "I think that ticket either way is impossible," "I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-Chief than Obama," she said. She spoke bluntly about her view that a joint ticket was not in the cards, she said, because "I wanted to be sure I didn't leave any ambiguity."

Pelosi did not sound amused. The Clintons have crossed a line. You can't pander to the opponent of a rival political party in the middle of a presidential campaign if you expect the support of your party.

Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton

These are the only two tickets that can bring the party back together now to beat out the REAL bad guys.

Get it together people, or it will be 4 more years of Blood for Oil!!!

++SC

Mara,

It is really silly if you truly believe that the RNC is getting their attacks from Hillary.

The RNC excel at getting their attacks all on their own. They make it a business.

Hillary is not by any means "ripping Obama to shreds" compared to what the Republicans will do. That is laughable.

Honestly, is Hillary allowed to raise any legitimate questions about Barack's qualifications?

Is she just supposed to be an Obamabot and fall in line?

Even the 3am ad, was not about fear mongering, but having people think more deeply about reality. Who do you want to have answer that phone.

Barack called it fear mongering, and then ran his own same exact ad.

If people saw both ads, and decided that that they truly thought Hillary was more qualified - isn't that fair?

Aren't people allowed to think about the issue of who is truly most qualified?

If Barack had as many years of experience as Hillary - would you dismiss it all?

There are many people - who like the idea of getting two strong, intelligent leaders for one.

And remember, all administrations make mistakes - Barack's would too - but Bill's administration was one of the most socio-economically successful we have ever had.

Lauren, Doesn't it seem even slightly odd to you that Hillary has been endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bill Cunningham? They are not doing that because they think she is a nice lady.

I lived in SC during the nastiest campaign in recent history - between Bush and McCain. I doubt whether anyone on this site believes politics is sweet. Right now, it is politically expedient for the RNC to watch Hillary try rip Obama to shreds to gather material for their fall attacks. If it's Obama, Hillary has done their work for them - free of charge. If it's Hillary, we are not only going to hear about her endless flip-flops, her true lack of experience, and the weirdness of a Clinton co-presidency. We are going to hear about the Clinton years and it is not going to be pretty. The Clintons refuse to separate themselves from one another, and as a result, his mistakes are her mistakes. And he stood up before the American people and lied. If Hillary is the nominee, you are going to be watching clips of him doing that again and again and again.

There are Republicans whose job it is - whose work it is - who specialize in -researching, and scheming, and ploting - to find any and all weakenesses of their opponents. They then exploit and strategically exaggerate those weaknesses, even going so far as to spread rumours and lies.

If you think they weren't going to mention that Barack had been voted the most liberal Senator, and that's he's only been in the national Senate 3 years, and that he was against the war, etc., you are incredibly naive.

The Clinton campaign has raised important and legitimate questions and issues to consider when selecting a commander in Chief.

The Republicans months ago, said they would "eviscerate" whoever the Democratic candidate is. How do you think they "eviscerate" (= disembowel) people? With candy and flowers?

They will blow you away will what they will do.

Or maybe she is getting more support because she would be a gift to the Repubs.

Insight coming from a campaign that is just now catching to Obama in strategy and they haven't even manage to do that well. A good deal of her support is based on sympathy and other things, it has damn little to do with her being more experienced! In the words of her red faced loser husband, give me a break!

LA in Indiana:
I couldn't have said it better myself!

Question: When that proverbial 3 AM phone call comes who would you want to answer that call? From someone who has been characterized as aggressive and a fighter? Someone who plays both sides of the fence? Someone who lies on the resume and manipulates and puts both feet in mouth? Someone who is consistently having campaigning problems? Or someone who is a thoughtful speaker? Someone who actually has the lay of the land when it comes to culturally diverse? Someone who is eloquent and statemen like as well as presidential? Remove their gender and race and just listen to each candidate for one day!

typo, 'dumb', not 'dump'

There is a saying 'A wise peroson must have 1 mistake over 1000 judgements';

there is another saying 'A dump person must have 1 correct judgement over 1000 judgements he made.'.

I'm not saying Obama is dump. My point is, just because he not vote for Iraq war doesn't mean he is wise. We should see how many correct judgements he made in total. We know, he even didn't have much accomplishments. Also, he didn't vote for 'NO' on Iraq war, he was even not US senator at that time. He just verbally said no. Later, he voted for Yes.

In corporation, we all know the promotion criteria. A person should be 'exceeding' the peers consistently for several years, then can be considered promotion, still even not guarranted. Obama was in US senate just 2 years, he is not that distinguished, why should he be promoted?

If he is promoted, lots of people in corporation will feel unbalanced.

obama's 04-05 tax returns were released in Il. his earmarks are listed on his site.

HRC are you campaigning to be McCains VP? You have no firm stance on Iraqi withdrawal, repealing tax cuts or fixing social security. is part of the deal that you get mandatory insurance for the insurance companies in exchange for the VP spot?

Ha.

Does anyone realize Hillary is TRIANGULATING within her own Party?

If this is an example of the treatment she's willing to dish out to her own party, How much respect do you think she'll show the other 50% of the country that consistently gives her high disproval ratings?

Ya she's the one to replace a divise president.