HOPE and CHANGE that is the only words that Obama knows to spout. Is there HOPE in hope alone? NO! Not if there is no substance to back up that hope and Obama's speeches have no substance. CHANGE, will simply talking about change bring about change? NO! Not if there is no basis or ground work for change. Obama has not laid out any visions for hope or change. Obama is an empty vassle of his own ego-no substance. I suppose Obama really hopes Clinton miscues in Texas which really is not likely.

Obama is running a great campaign, but I think has made minor mistakes along the way. One was challenging New Hampshire voters to end the campaign there, when they seem to enjoy their habit of overturning Iowa results. Another, albeit even smaller, mistake is offering more detail on the stump.

It seems like he's answering the Clinton talking point that he has no substance. Only problem is that criticism isn't working. If anything, there's been something of a rejection of the Clinton technocrat approach.

I think Obama would be better off staying with the inspirational stump and leaving the wonkish ideas to his position papers.

I thought last night Clinton recognized the shortcoming, and was herself trying to offer more inspirational talk. And while she's no Obama, it wasn't bad. But today she slipped into even more detail on the stump. I wouldn't advise Obama to repeat her mistake.

Wonkishness is okay in Iowa and New Hampshire - more of the educational town hall setting, with an audience that's used to it. You get into the pace of these multi-state weeks, and its boring. People who have any interest in detail already know it - its not hard to find - and the rest will never care.

the senators that were faced with voting on the war did not read the documentation. They should have all been impeached. It is a flagrant incompetence on the part of any member of congress to cast a vote on legislation that they have not read or do not understand.

To the speech, where is the beef ABC, he gave the details, you report that he gave the details and then you do not report the details. Is this a news organization or not?

Lincoln Chaffee (Republican) voted against the war. Ted Kennedy (Democrat) voted against the war.

Why didn't Sen. Clinton vote against the war?

It's a pivotal question. The war is a moral issue, a feminist issue, an economic issue, a fiscal issue.

It's THE issue. "It's the war, stupid." Even those who say other issues are important, they're not that important, really. Everything else comes from the $9-12 billion (depending on whose estimates you believe) we are wasting in Iraq every month. You want to pay for health care incentives? Raises for teachers? Infrastructure improvements? It all could have been done several times over **had more members of Congress voted their convictions instead of their political fears**.

It was NOT a "hard choice". Read the NIE's available at the time -- there were no WMD, there was no link to Sept. 11, there was **NO** reason to go to war with Iraq. None.

Not a hard call, not a hard call at all.

Obama - who has always had detailed plans available on his website for anyone willing to read - has allowed Clinton to hoodwink voters into thinking he has no substance. He was tralking policy early and the critics complained he was talking "above people's heads". He stopped talking policy, and Clinton labelled him without substance. Now he is mixing the two, and at just right the time. I think more policy is needed on the stump now to breakdown the characterization Clinton has built.

Gee, Lonestar, maybe if you went to cspan video library or even you tube and listened to the policy speeches that Obama has made you may rethink your Clinton spin.
Yes hope and change are the key words in his campaign just like all campaigns use certain key words to define theirs. The problem is that Clinton has none because she is still searching for a reason for running other than that she someone thinks she is owed the presidency and it's her turn. How very royal of her.
You simply cannot be the president of the Harvard Law Review, graduate from Harvard with the top honors, teach constitutional law in a prestigeous university or write 2 bestselling books, one of which was discussing policy, and be as you contend a person without substance.
As for the teleprompter the poster above complained about, may i ask if you just wrote a speech that lasts 20 minutes, would you be able to memorize it in the space of an hour or two? Has Obama claimed to have a photographic memory? I don't think so.
Last. I live in Illinois. I would suggest people learn alittle about our state legislature and it's rules concerning the use of present in voting. It has a long tradition and is not a skip out. I would suggest you learn before you spout off about things you know little about. It's makes people look rather foolish and ill informed. More like little Clinton parrots.

To the person who said that intelligence reports stated that they had weapons of mass destruction. You need to do a little more research. The weapons inspectors at the time said the had no evidence that the wmd's were still in Iraq...in fact they had far more evidence that they had been destroyed years earlier, right after the first gulf war. This opinion was shared by almost every other super power at the time...which is one of the reasons we had such little international support when we invaded. Not to mention that the idea of invading a country over wmd's is completely absurd anyway...most of the civilized world has them and a great many of those trade with terrorist sponsoring regimes. For instance the weapons that we were sure they had...you know the ones he used to gas the Kurds...he bought from us during the Reagen administration. Yet with all of these dangerous countries floating around out there we invade Iraq? Perhaps there were other reasons for that, but I'll leave that up to you to look and find out for yourself...

How did Obama know in 2002 that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Irak? Why say it now? Why didn´t you say it before during these 5 years?

He´s smarter that teh CIA?

Hillary -who has changed campaign managers, campaign slogans, positions on just about anything and, everything (war included) as the prevailing winds blow, boasts as her largest group of constituents, the less educated, lower middleclass -the key operative being, 'less educated' -as the posts on this thread so perfectly demonstrate.

One thing that surprises me in all of this back and forth about whether or not Obama has what it takes to actually 'do' something in the White House is the prevalence of this notion that the US President sits in the Oval Office and 'changes things.'

Let us all remember that it's not Obama or Hillary or McCain who will do the work over the next four years. The job of the President, primarily, is to supply the vision that will guide his/her hand-picked team of technocrats. Obama doesn't need to know nuts and bolts of policy. He needs to be able to recognize and employ those who do.

His hesitation to support Bush in Iraq demonstrates an ability to understand what motivates people. I knew without thinking that Bush was barking up the wrong tree, and I'm surprised all of these Senators and members of Congress were so easily duped.

Obama is going to blow this thing wide open.

What is critical is what Obama said during the lead up to the authorization to War... That the administration did not have an exit strategy nor did it take into account sectarian violence within the country, nor how we would be perceived by more moderate muslim nations.

Keep in mind, his fellow US Senator Durbin as well as 20 other US Senators voted against the authorization, not on WMD's none of which even if you believe Saddam had could reach the US Shores, but the strategic error of invading a Muslim nation without broad moderate Muslim support, the way Bush I had built..

Don't focus on McCain Vs Clinton.. MSM has the fix... When ABCNews TV ends with latest national Poll: Obama Beats McCain and Hillary doesn't... Its over.. Emotions been going to Obama since Hill's tears in Hampshire.. Strategic voters have no choice but go Obama now.. He has the money, the ground troops, and the mojo...

Let's see McCain slide back to Moderate he was in 2000 and really have a debate...

Is this ecomonic plan that Hillary already introduced last year.....hmmmmm.
Does Obama have an original thought?

Is this economic plan that Hillary already introduced last year.....hmmmmm.
Does Obama have an original thought?
Net he gets raked over the coals at the ddebate for this.

Hey hey hey, get a grip ya'll Obama haters. 1'st of all the man is putting himself on the level of the American people.2nd of all He understands what it is to be down, and he understand what it is to be
up. We should be happy we came this close to having someone so real who can represent us and reunite the world. Obama came on this earth for a purpose, and the time is now. One last thing, Barack Obama does not win the presidency at this particular time, we are all going to be very very sorry. I just want to be able to say that I saw it coming.

Oh--so bringing a bit of substance into his campaign is "taking it down a notch"---please. I can't remember when I've seen a politician with such an inflated sense of himself. Are we supposed to cheer when he drops altitude to talk to us about the issues that we care about? This guy makes me sick.

All these anti-Obama posts are just evidence that he is winning. Must be frustrating for you haters.

Hillary showed amazing leadership today by ostaining from voting on the telco immunity even though she was in the area.

She also rose above feigning outrage when a reported accurately questioned the pimping of her daughter (who the very next day was seen lunching and smoozing with a super delegate)

She laid a workable foundation that we have been building a health care program today.

She never waits till public opinion is known before voicing her own.

Unlike Obama who's achievements are only to rise from nothing, inspire and motivate those around him and has a record of success in all his endeavors.

A key problem with the Clintons is their long track record of untrustworthiness. That's both in some part incompetence and lack of core integrity.

To Julia | Feb 13, 2008 3:48:08 PM,

You need to do a lot more homework. Obama made his comments about the war while HE WAS COMPETING IN A CONGRESSIONAL RACE in October 2002. He was running against a popular incumbent, Booby Rush. And he said it at a time when it was multo-unpopular to say it.

As for the "present" votes. You need to study the Illinois state system. Legislators can vote YES, NO, or PRESENT.

"In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.

State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected."

What is with the whiners complaining about Obama's opposition to "dumb wars" back in 2002? Senators had an opportunity to review the classified intelligence on Capitol Hill, in a secured room, but the registry that senators and congresspeople were required to sign show that Hillary Clinton never took the time to review the documents. I'm tired of her excuses. She supported the Iraq resolution for her political gain...she believes she has to appear tougher than the conservatives on foreign policy issues (see her recent Iran vote) to be considered presidential. This would continue if she were to become the president...she wants to prove she is tough enough, as tough or tougher than the men. Its about her ambitions, not the lives harmed or costs of Iraq, Iran, etc.