This is funny what a big flop, coming to the people as if he just got a hot tip and then pushing the views of a man that supported the war.

I guess Obama needs a lesson in bad judgment before he comes to preach to all about their faults. So his campaign person misspoke, well maybe Hillary and all the other senators mis voted on the war.

I hope you are correct. I think a Clinton/Edwards ticket would be great. I hope she wins Tues. and becomes the nominee for the Dems.

Clinton did not read the NIE and has signed it and voted for it not even knowing what she was signing off because she said it was not clear for her that it was the use of force while the title of the paper she was signing off was saying that it was an authorization of the use of force against Irak. Let us leave out this kind ot article because we are big boys and girls.

In order to win the general election, Democrats need the support of women. They really have treated her with a double standard. For instance, Obama is always listed as about the ONLY choice for VP should Hillary win; however, she is never listed as one of his top picks. A lot of this super high turn out can be traced back tosupport for Hillary--she's won a lot of states too. I know a lot of women that will be supporting McCain if Hillary loses.

It's really very logical though for Hillary supporters to consider supporting McCain--on top of the nasty comments by Obama supporters regarding their candidate of choice.

Hillary is seen as strong on national defense. She's a hawk. McCain is also strong on national defense and a hawk.

Obama can't claim to be strong on national defense. So for Democrats who are concerned about this--McCain is the logical choice especially given his high rate of working with Democrats on social issues.

I'm also really getting tired of this supposed wisdom that he had on being against the war from the beginning. He didn't have access to any information when he was forming that opinion. Either way he had a 50 50 chance of guessing right. I was against the war too, but it was a gut feeling--not one based on facts. Does that qualify me to run for President and have everyone claim that I had vision and wisdom. Um...No.

SJ-- I think Hillary should claim that on her Iraq vote--her finger slipped.

Hmmm...this just goes to show me that he's full of it. He condens Hillary for voting for the war but then surrounds himself with people who did the same thing. Interesting!

Obviously Obama should reject and denounce warmonger Rockefeller and distance himself from that endorsement.

The Iraq War Vote is not playing anymore!!!!! Obama is the one digging himself into a hole over the War Vote. He can't remember because, it's all just words without meaning. It's oaky though because the pendulum swings and it's swinging back Senator Clinton's way. Tough when the arrogant fall, especially all those Obamacans who are going to be depressed when the REZKO slime emerges. Wrap it up they say before the *^%* hits the fan. I read a prediction today that the sewage that gets spewed forth from the REZKO trial may smell so bad that Obama may actually WITHDRAW. I also read a prediction (astrological) which I do not use except for entertainment but I found it amusing. It said that Hillary will actually be VP before she is president, apparently in this case, Obama gets elected but then gets taken out for some reason, health or other and Hillary becomes president.

Since everyone here has become so serious and divisive, I thought a little humor would be nice.

What matters, in the end, is that Rockefeller as the current Intelligence Committee chair endorses Obama.

It's a serious blow for Clinton's national security credentials.

Another classic example of jumping on Sen. Obama for, in fact, speaking the truth, when the Clinton campaign has nothing of substance to jump on. Did Sen. Obama lie in his remarks? Not at all, everything he said was true...it may have been misinterpreted because he was standing next to the current Chair and people may have assumed he was referenceing Rockefeller, but that does not make the statement untrue.

BO plagiarized => ok

BO alters others' record => ok, too

what's next?

Two biggest selling points of Obama, according to himself and his fans, are: 1) Obama is a uniter who can bring republicans and independents together, while Clinton is a divisive figure, and 2) Obama has excellent judgement as demonstrated in his anti-war stance and 2002 anti-war speech.

Honestly, I do not think that Clinton has been effective in disect Obama's claims, perhaps she is worried about hurting democrats' chance in the general election. Now let me argue that Obama's claims are bogus.

1) On Obama as a uniter and Hillary as divisive.

Obama's ability as a uniter only shows up in his speeches. His voting records both as state senator and US-Senator do not support his claim. In fact, if anything, his voting records showed just the opposite. His voting records earned him as the most liberal democrat in the US-Senator, which basically means that he never or most unlikely vote for issues that have some common interest with republicans. This is not what a uniter would do. Therefore, you really have to believe in his words in his speeches that he is a uniter and that he will work with republicans to solve problems.

On the contrary, Hillary, after she got to the US Senate, has worked with many most conservative republicans including those who led impeachment of her husband on various bills. Many of them actually admitted that Hillary is an excellent colleague in the Senate. McCain of course also has an excellent track of records in bridging with democrats.

In short, among the three major contenders, Obama has the least credentials as a uniter, if you do not count on his speeches. Of course, the fact that Obama jumped into this election by ignoring the seniority (out of his personal political ambition), thus effectively divided the democrats does not help him to be called as a uniter.

2) On Obama's 2002 anti-war speech and his anti-war stance.

We have to remember that as Bush administration drumed up the war with Iraq in 2002 and early 2003, the majority of democrats (let's say 20 millions) were very suspicious about administration's intention and resisted the war idea. Obama was one of those 20 millions. At the heart of the issues was whether or not Iraq had the weapon of mass destruction (WMD) and whether or not the US and UK intelligence information was believable. Besides democrats, Bush's own secretary of State, Colin Powell (my hero) and his associates, were initially also very suspicious about the information and resisted the war idea. A lot of Americans later on changed their mind, mainly because the intelligence information became more believable or at least believable enough that Colin Powell changed his mind to go to the UN to show part of the information. I started to believe the story after Colin Powell was willing to do.

At this point, most Americans possibly except for the real liberals agreed with the war idea. Therefore, I would argue that given the information that Americans had at the time, it is a solid judgement to vote for the war. That is what and why the congress did. In 2004 election, Kerry and Edwards both said this -- they did not question the decision and vote for the war, but they faulted the administration for executing the war.

Of course, the true liberals are those who are against war under any circumstance. Is Obama one of those true liberals? There are only two answers.

The first answer is yes, and I have reasons to believe that he is one of those true liberals. In this case, Obama's anti-war bet in 2002-2003 was not because of his sound judgement, as he often claims. His bet was derived from his political and philosophical belief that is simply no war no matter what. Do we need such a person in White House? His bet in 2002 was a lucky one, but what about next time?

The second answer is that perhaps Obama is not the true liberal, and he was just like many of us who initially opposed the war but subsequently changed views after seeing more information or hearing Colin Powell's UN speech. I have reasons to believe the second answer, because he later in 2004-2005 admitted that if he had been in the US Senate in 2003 he would have voted the same. In this case, he is no different from Hillary. If this is true, I would feel slightly more comfortable with him as the command-in-chief in case he wins in November.

Talking about crazy. What planet is Hillary supporters living on? Hillary is going to win by 10 to 20 points that is a JOKE.

Secondly, she is going to win the nomination? Look at the delegate race, she is not able to catch up. She is done. The Democratic leadership realizes she is done. If they attempt anything underhanded the democratic party is DEAD.

The article is correct his remarks did leave the impression that it was Rockefeller he was speaking about, maybe the impression he wanted to give the crowd was look my endorsers are no nonsense guys on the war.

Then again Obama is a guy that once he makes a blunder he always has a great excuse to cover it up.

A present vote means you want them to discuss it, a slipped finger he should not be held for that, poor judgment with Rezko can also happen, missing meeting am sure there is a excuse, his questionable associates are just friends, NAFTA blunder he did not really mean that, the lifting of speeches is ok he can do that to, just like all the host of excuses that some on here make to cover Obama's nonsense.

Mitchell--Obama cannot cross the finish line either.

It's funny how Obama supporters are against having EVERY vote counted...Fl or MI

Gee--as well as having no experience...I guess Obama is taking after W. Bush in another way.

Obama=Arrogance
Obama=Liar
Obama=Inexperience
Obama wins Primary=Republican president November 08

If you can't see past the mistakes he keeps making over and over, please don't vote for him cause you love the way he talks. We need a responsible person in the White House. He's not the one!!!!!!!!

Can you imagine how the press and Obama would act if Hillary had held zero meetings over Afghanistan?

The press would of been on Hillary like glue especially if now she was saying she had the answer to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The headline would been screaming " Zero Meetings " and they would of question every word that she tried to say on foreign matters and the war with AQ

The issue is what the listeners of Senator Obama's oratory are led to believe in the context of his statements. In an earlier debate he tried to lead people to believe he passed legislation to require nuclear power plants to notify local governments and citizens of any radioactive emissions but he really didn't. The bill was passed by a committee and his version died later. He is very,very subtle. We all should be careful and not reckless with our vote.

I just love all the negative comments regarding Obama. Do you think if hillary wins the nomination she won't need Obama supporters to win the general election? With all the negative, nasty comments regarding Obama, attacking the mans character at the same time saying you know nothing about him, do you honestly believe all those supporters would want to then support hillary?? Just a rhetorical question, something y'all might wanna think about.
The Dem party is done, the campaign has been one nasty, distorted, lie after lie just to get votes campaign, and of course you all blame Obama
==of course==
there is a double standard for the man with the tan. Even if Obama wins, he will not be successful bringing this country together because racism is just too deep. It will always be a part of every day life....how sad.