Blech. Add this to the Rezko corruption mess (also Obama-linked) and his weak, weak health care plan, and it looks like we're left with two mediocre choices for the Democratic nominee.

I broke this story. So there.

I guess I might buy some Exelon (EXC) on Wednesday... this helps answer my question somewhere in the comments of Raw (was: the naked truth).

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this, and a test of his abilities as campaigner and politician.

Josh - Post 39 Johnnie on your:Post Debate Reality Check. Clinton Gains

Now will we get the DailyKos power plant story?

The Exelon episode reflects poorly on Obama. So does his past support for coal liquefaction in light of his ties to the Illinois coal industry.

And yet, none of these candidates is pure as snow. They wouldn't have gotten so far in politics if they were. Obama noted during one recent debate that "all of us have our hands dirty," or something to that effect.

Just as each of us must do in life, each politician has to decide when to compromise and when to take a stand. For politics, there has to be some middle ground between the pure Kucinich/Nader types and the purely impure Boss Tweed/Clinton types.

Also, I have to cut Obama some slack in public life because (like McCain actually) he is someone who was selfless enough to choose service. In Obama's case, it was spending three years as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago as opposed to going into the military.

BTW, the one episode in Obama's career that troubles me the most, and does suggest real impropriety, is the help he got from Tony Rezko in purchasing his home. The Chicago papers were all over that story, so I take some reassurance in the fact that both papers' editorial boards have still endorsed him for president. (The Boston papers didn't endorse Romney.)

How come "Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama’s efforts yielded any lasting benefits." Seems like the way Josh describes it, Obama did nothing but fake out his constituents and serve the nuclear special interests. This sort of reminds me of attacking Obama's "present" votes on abortion. Activists who follow the issue don't see it quite the same way as a dumbed-down soundbite version.

And since the NYT indicates this bill pretty much had no chance of actually becoming law, in any form, what more did you expect to have happen except possibly scaring the industry into doing better with the threat of a new law?

That how it seems to me, once I read the whole NYT article, rather than Josh's breathless reinterpretation. But if you can keep people from looking too closely at the story, you could probably use it to do Obama some real damage.

elenchos @7:

And since the NYT indicates this bill pretty much had no chance of actually becoming law, in any form, what more did you expect to have happen except possibly scaring the industry into doing better with the threat of a new law?

You know what, I tried reading this article Saturday when it came out, and sophisticated type though I make myself out to be, it was very hard for me to follow along. It was hard for me to decide just how damning it was. Maybe that's why the headline was far from damning, "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate."

Ah, what's that expression? There are two things you don't want to see being made, legislation and sausage.

I just realized that David Axelrod was the name of the guy in "Endless Love"

@7 That is precisely how I interpreted the full article also...

Nice spin attempt Josh...

It's all perspective. I'm still going on overall record, personality, and intention, and when I compare HRC to Obama, it is a no brainer that Obama is the total package I trust more.

Just look at the differences in the styles of messages delivered by the two campaigns. Hillary's team is increasingly hostile, negative and accusatory... which is really similar to her political personality. Contrast that with Obama's team. Their message is more inspirational, uplifting and emotionally positive.

Who I trust comes down to the overall package and the message that resonates with how I'd like a president to represent me.

One quasi negative story that some poor fool dug up to create controversy isn't going to sway my opinion of this great man's character.

Reality Check

The Times cites Senate correspondence that the Republican chair of the committee, Imhofe, was not letting the bill move. It took both watering down the language, and Obama placing a hold on a Bush nomination, to get it out of committee. And even then the Republicans shelved it.

So if the watered down version couldn't make it to a vote, what chance did the orignal version have?

And yet watchdog groups feel that Obama's work did get the industry to voluntarily improve their reporting. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that “it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.”

I'm not an expert on the nuclear industry or legislation. But I have good reading comprehension and to me that is what the article says.

Obama did lie when he said he passed the bill, rather than merely moved it forward. Other than that, it's all Josh-o-vision making a new and different reality of its own.

It's a data point, a fuzzy one. It doesn't sound good, but then I never assumed that Obama was a virtuous crusader type. The cliche of Obama supporters is that we think he's a demigod, a model of virtue. No -- I just think he's articulate, perceptive, generally in the right camp and gifted with awesome political skills. HRC is, to varying lesser degrees, about the same. You choose.

Of course, no one would be shocked by HRC thinning down regulations or triangulating with the right -- that's supposed to be her gift. The suggestion seems to be that unless Obama is 100% pure we might as well go for HRC. But that only applies if you consider her the default choice. Some of us don't.

i just realized that the Obamatons on the Slog are insane. They are completely divorced from reality. What the fuck does it take for you people to acknowledge that he is just as slimy as every other politician?? Does he have to tear apart an infant with his bare hands during the Super Bowl ad for you people to come down from your pedestal? Don't make this a "He's not as bad as Hillary" thing. Just admit that he is sleazy and get over it. Shit, I still might vote for him, but I can't believe how much you defend this guy and ATTACK Josh Feit as though he dug up some obscure article. IT'S ON THE FRONT FUCKING PAGE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES.
Get a fucking grip.

I don't think that this (or anything else) would ever make me vote for Clinton. If she's running on her husband's record, there are plenty of worse things than this that I could associate with her: workfare, DOMA, "Don't Ask Don't Tell", triangulation, etc. And being a power player in the Democratic party means that she's beholden to plenty of special interests of her own.

This certainly does cast some dispersions on Obama, but I'm still led back to the same place. What does a vote for Obama or Clinton mean? The "voting for the first (blank) president" answer is complete bullshit. For me, it is (and always has been) a choice between standard-bearer for the Democratic old guard, and someone who seems to be well enough outside of the party machine to shake things up a bit. What do we really need at this point?

So now Obamatons say "Obama did lie" and that he's not "pure as snow."

Uh-huh.

You can't win a general election by saying over and over you're all about change, then have it turn out that you are just "not as impure" as the rest, or that you lied, but not as many times as the others.

ohmygod @13:

i just realized that the Obamatons on the Slog are insane. They are completely divorced from reality. What the fuck does it take for you people to acknowledge that he is just as slimy as every other politician??

ohmygod, first off, let me say, welcome to Slog. It's great to have newcomers come on board, even if it's just to trash Barack Obama.

So let me get this straight. Do you actually believe all politicians are equally slimy, or are you just sayin'? I mean, was Abraham Lincoln just as slimy as Boss Tweed? And if you do believe that, then why do you give a damn about politics yourself?

Oh, speaking of "THE FRONT FUCKING PAGE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES," here's a wonderful little story about Bill Clinton and uranium and Kazakhstan:
After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

Don't make this a "He's not as bad as Hillary" thing.

Um ... why not? I don't think it's unfair for Josh to point this article out, and it's unflattering to Obama to at least some degree. But when I make a decision, it's still going to be between Obama and Hillary.

@13: What the fuck does it take for you people to acknowledge that he is just as slimy as every other politician??

I can't disagree with you there, but the truth is that we're voting more for the message than the person. Obama could get in and be ten times better or worse than Bush, and we simply have no way of knowing. A side by side comparison of resumes just doesn't work in this situation, especially when the strengths of an administration are so often with the appointed members, and the job is just simply... unique.

However, if people vote for the message, isn't that evidence of a mandate? An expressed preference in the direction and tone of national policy? Can't a vote for Obama symbolize the feeling that there is a new direction that is needed within government?

(I am still at a loss to figure out what particular message the Clintons are spinning that people identify with, though.)

How dense are you Josh, really? This isn't scandalous. NO ONE has completely clean hands in presidential politics, and this is far from a damning piece. I can't believe how naive you stranger writers are in refusing to see the forest from the trees. Is it really damning that a piece of legislation was changed from its original form in order to get passed? The bigger, more important picture is that this legislation has lead to more open disclosure about leaks. Stop taking every piece of press as gospel and try to think critically on your own for a change.

@14

We need someone who will win.
That doesn't have anythign at all to do with who you, me or anyone here personally likes. Or anyone in Oregon, Michigan, California, or New York. Those states are all voting Democratic.

It depends on which candidate can win over a fairly narrow band of voters sitting in Lorraine Ohio and Pensacola Florida and other places full of church going folk, families with kids in Iraq, guys who love NASCAR, women who are now terrified that their ARM will jump up just when their medical premiums are rising.

After they see tons of TV ads slamming the Democratic candidate.

What we need is the candidate who can win those voters, in that context.

For me personally, the influence of money on politics is an enormous issue. McCain still gets points from me for McCain-Feingold. Maybe McCain-Feingold wasn't perfect legislation. No legislation is. Just as no legislator is.

So it's hard for me not to be deeply troubled by the Clintons. They're obviously not as brazenly corrupt as George W. Bush and modern movement conservatism. But then, latter-day Republicans have blown away the standards for corruption the way Barry Bonds has blown away home run records.

One item that really troubles me about Hillary is that cha-ching moment in Michael Moore's "Sicko" about the contributions she's been taking from the health insurance industry. Here's a passage from an article from back in June, Michael Moore's Sicko So Meano To Hillary:

There were audible gasps from the overwhelmingly liberal audience when the film pointed out that Sen. Clinton got nearly a million dollars from the health care lobby, making her the second-highest recipient of donations (behind former GOP Sen. Rick Santorum!) from the very industry that Moore demonizes.

Folks, when you get mentioned in the same sentence as Rick Santorum, that is not a good sign.

full discloure: obama supporter, here.

moving on: thanks for the link; i read the story - sorry, not "damning", though certainly informative and provided information I didn't have.

and "as evil as they sound"? and the ever-present stranger refrain, "WTF"? how old are you - 12?

elenchos @ 7 has you right as "breathless" - for you (and far too many of the nattering, chattering class), all of this is more about the drama, the gotcha and your own egos than the substance or the nuance.

sadly, though, there are millions of america who swallow it hook, line, and sinker. can't you do a little something to elevate the discourse?

and if you've never learned that mature policy work requires unite and dilute (aka compromise for the greater good), you need to get out more.

What the fuck does it take for you people to acknowledge that he is just as slimy as every other politician??

Really? As slimy as Dick Cheney? As slimy as Randy "Duke" Cunnigham? As slimy as Tom DeLay? Trent Lott? Rudy Giuliani? Spiro Agnew? David Duke?

In other words, Obama is an utter scumbag without principle? You really believe this?

Is this what strikes you as sophisticated thinking?

If you read the article, it does reveal that it was brought down by Republican opposition who demanded it be weakened.

They weakened it to push it through committee, and then it still failed on the floor. All these facts are from what was available on the front page article (for those of you who picked up the NYT in Penn Station this morning).

@21: Hillary, Obama, and Edwards were all in the Senate... with Santorum! Clearly, they are all evil.

Cressona @ 16

“ohmygod, first off, let me say, welcome to Slog. It's great to have newcomers come on board, even if it's just to trash Barack Obama.”

You ought to cut that out. This is a public forum and there is no seniority. Your snarky welcomes are a sad attempt to control discourse and down right cunty.

"You ought to cut that out" is a happy attempt to control the discourse. Well, not so much happy, as less sad. Anyhoo, I thought cressona was ironically mocking someone who is hardly new to the Slog, but rather one of the boors who uses a new name every time they chime in.

Cressona everytime you post your anti-HRC screeds you cost Obama votes.

I was leaning towards Edwards or uncommitted but lately I've moved slightly to the Obama camp but every time I read the Obama supporters, with you as worst offender, I'm discouraged. How will you react when the Repubo machine goes to work? Will you be screaming at people in cafes with buttons and people in cars with bumper stickers?
Or will you confine your anger to anonymous posts?

If I read this correctly, Obama is OK maybe even good because he compromised with the nuclear industry but HRC is bad if she compromises with the health care industry in order to get some sort of universal health care. Is that correct?

BTW I want single payer health care without the insurance HMO bullshit so I'm not happy with either of their plans.

Part of what makes these comments threads shed more heat than light is that they end up devolving into a shouting match over who's shouting at whom. So rather than contribute to that level of discourse, I want to mention a fantastic editorial in the New Hampshire Union Leader this week.

Hillary's word: It's worth nothing.

COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

...Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.

The Union Leader had already attained God status on account of their earlier "anti-editorial" in which they called Mitt Romney a phony.

What I object to is how Josh completely distorts the article, taking selected quotes out of context to present a one-sided picture that is somewhere between misleading and factually false. For example, Josh writes that "he didn’t fight for action on it [the bill]" when in fact the article says that he DID fight to advance the bill "even holding up a presidential nomination in order to force a hearing on it" but that "eventually" he had to weaken it to get it through a Republican- controlled committee. Annie or someone should post an entry on this so people who don't read the NY Times article are not misled by just seeing Josh's diatribe. I've seen Josh do this on other issues (e.g., transportation) too. I have no problem with advocacy journalism or trying to build a case on something, but it should at least be based on facts and not distortions. Josh's post fails this basic test, and you can't really trust the accuracy of what he says.

@30,
I linked the article in the post. Everyone has a chance to read it. You may disagree with my take on it. Cool with me. However, I linked it because I do want people to read it.

Cressona have you no sense of decency?

One thing I do wish: That we all cool down. We have what may be a long primary season before us and we have two good candidates. Even if you disagree with the last part, let's keep the spew out of it, both sides.

You know I agree with Johnnie on Cressona's "Welcome to the board," crap. It's really irritating, and frankly, Cressona did it to *me* about a week ago and I was totally confused given that I have been posting on Slog for about 9 months now. And yes, I always use my same name. Btw, there are a lot of Slog commenting newcomers who are interested in the political coverage of Slog, Obama and Clinton supporters alike and It's really ridiculous to suggest that it's only Clinton supporters who are the newcomers.

Cressona, you're not the Slog police, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop subtly hitting at people just because you've never seen them comment before.

@29
Repeating lies and arriving at characterizations without giving underlying facts lowers the discourse and is slimey and dishonorable.

So cut it out!

Clinton did not campaign in the Fla. and Mich. primaries. And you don't quote the document she signed so there is no way of telling if it said "and furthermore, said candidates signing below shall not try to have any delegates from Floricda seated at the convention and shall resist any such attempts."

Likely because: it doesn't say that.

So, her statement she would try to seat those delegates is A-OK under that pledge.

[Such a commitment would be unenforceable anyway because the party rules give all the delegates the right to hearing challenges to seating delegates.]

Beyond that,
1. Obama relies on the Party Establishment to EXCLUDE THE VOICES OF OVER A MILLION AND A HALF voters?

that's going to be the Obama message on national TV when this comes up. Dear Florida: Your Votes Don't Count. Why? Because Party Insiders MAde Up These Rules that say Your Votes Don't Count.

Hardly the change we want.

2. Disastrous for carrying Florida.
3. Your post shows: some Obama supporters will say anything.

@34 - Agreed. S/He pulled it on me yesterday and I've been commenting on this blasted thing since early last summer. I think I'll stick to the Project Runway liveslogs until the nominee's been chosen. It's a lot more civil. And infinitely gayer.

Poor Hillary. All she wants is to count every vote, and she always has the rotten luck to uncover disenfranchised voters only after she realizes they are voting for her. Sometimes the price you pay for being a Master Politician is that you appear so self-serving.

I wonder if anyone has asked her if signing that agreement was a m-m-m-mist- mista-- a m-m-m-mist-- a, um, one of those things that Hillary never makes.

@37
ha-ha-ha.

Getting back up to a raised level of discourse, can you link to the document -- then we could read it -- and see whether she said she wouldn't try to seat those delegates at the convention?

Because if she didn't this issue is one in which Clinton will be for democracy, and Obama against it, on national TV. That will look bad for Obama and help undercut his anti-insider, "change" message. Why, there's Obama saying 1.5 million votes don't count Because PArty Insiders Say So! Denying those delegates could also help us lose Florida in the general election.

You don't refute those points, and instead make a joke. Ha, ha, ha. Conclusion: there is no refutation.

full disclosure: Obama supporter

I realize this may tarnish the halo a bit...but is this ANYWHERE the level of scandal that the Bushes and Clintons reek of?

Great piece from The Nation, Hillary's Florida Flip, on her attempt to rationalize breaking the no-Florida, no-Michigan pledge:

The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday's two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party's presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders.

Y'know, we keep hearing how Obama is untested against the Republicans' shenanigans in places like Florida. But shouldn't the Clintons' shenanigans now in places like Florida count for something?

I think we Democrats sell ourselves short sometimes. Maybe it's a lack of self-esteem. But seems to me the Clintons are proving Dems are just effective as Republicans at modern-day dirty politics.

If we can finally give the Clintons the credit they deserve for doing what ya gotta do, maybe we can give Obama (and the American people) credit for standing up to it.

In other news: Just a friendly reminder why we'll all be voting Dem (well, I may still go Green) in November: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html

@38

There is nothing for me to refute: Hillary is the one who has a problem here.

Hillary has to explain how she was happy with the rules in Nevada, she was happy with the rules in Michigan, she was happy with the rules in Florida-- she was happy with all that months beforehand. Not one peep from Hillary month after month.

Then one day -- coincidentally the day after she figured out how badly she needed those delegates -- one day, she becomes a champion for the poor disenfranchised voter.

I don't have the slightest idea where the document is that Hillary signed. I haven't looked for it, because it's not my problem. Hillary is the one with a problem, and everyone is waiting for her to explain her rather unfortunate timing.

@35,

Hillary promised not to participate in the Michigan primary, but she did anyway, which explains why she was the only choice on the ballot. Maybe she has cause to seat Florida, since Florida voters did have a choice besides voting for her or "uncommitted," but any attempt to seat Michigan is bullshit.

Am I the only one more disturbed by the fact that telling people their drinking water is poison is politically infeasible in Washington?

Someone fighting for votes in Florida... Yes, Dems better stay away from that.

johnnie @45: Someone fighting for votes in Florida... Yes, Dems better stay away from that.

That's exactly how Hillary strategist Howard Wolfson is spinning it, and it's this kind of chutzpah that a lot of Democrats (and Republicans and unaffiliated voters) deeply resent. From the Nation story:

The truth of the Clinton strategy was writ large in a memo from top strategist Howard Wolfson, who announced on the day of the campaign's dismal showing in South Carolina that, "Regardless of today's outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday. Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5."

Yeah, accusing the Obama campaign of disenfranchising voters...

Of course, the Clinton campaign has to be very selective about when to take up the cause of disenfranchised voters. See: the Nevada casino caucuses they tried to cancel.

The common thread here is changing the rules in the middle of the game. Prevent votes from counting when it suits you (Nevada). Make meaningless votes count when it suits you (Florida, Michigan).

There is a Fact Check page on the Obama site that does a detailed review of the article:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/02/fact_check_on_new_york_times_s.php

I read the NYT article and it sounds like the bill was mostly blocked by the Republicans and the regulatory agency.

Hoo boy! Josh Feit is going to have to retract everything he said after he reads factcheck.org.

Just kidding. I know Josh doesn't retract.

@40
Where is the pledge document you say would be violated by Clinton's seeking to have MI and FL delegates seated at the convention? What does it say? Why are you hiding it? You've never read it, right?

The obvious reason you don't show us the document is: it likely does not say she, or any delegates at the convention, are barred from having a ruling on the seating of the FL and MI delegates.
In other words, it does not support this whole made up claim you are espousing.

Without showing us the document the claim that it is wrong for her or for other delegates to have the MI and FL delegates seated is.....bullshit.

Dirty, shameful bullshit. Political lying. Like Bush and Rove and Joe McCarthy.

Have you no shame?

Plus you don't address the fact that Obama seeking to deny voice to the 4th and 8th largest states with a total of 28 million people is, um, going to look bad.

I haven't heard anyone try to tell me it's going to look good. You guys are afraid to address this point. And Obama relying on some kind of intra-party legal technicality / insider agreement that no citizen ever signed undermines his change/new politics mantra. Because it's going to look llike he is denying democracy using insider trakcs to steal the nomination.

Obama: 28 million lose their voice because Party Insiders Say So. I have a contract denying the votes of 1.5 million Floridians. I demand that this Convention enforce my contract!

&&&&&
If I'm wrong I'm wrong on this, but the burden is on you who are making the charge to show us the document you say would be violated by attempts to seat those delegations.

&&&&&
As to the events you mention, it is likely they were fundraisers which were A-OK under the agrement. You can google for 30 minutes and find a minor article about some bullshit claim of violation which isn't a violation. And which doesn't even go to my point: she's allowed (like any delegate) to have those delegates attempt to be seated.

Why can't you find the actual document you say is being violated? Maybe you did find it and don't want to link to it because....it shows you are wrong.
Hmm?
Where's the contract you claim woudl be broken?
&&&&&&&&&&
@42
No. The side making the accusation has the bruden of proof.

Saying "well it's an issue now, so I don't have to prove anything to talk about, repeat and spread the lie and get all hot and bothered about it" is ...shameful and foul. Charges without proof....wow. How very Joe McCarthy.

&&&&
@35
At least you are rational and make a fairly interesting distinction between Michigan and Florida. Because you point to a fact.

I agree with you that the case for Florida is stronger than Michigan. However, as to MI, I'd certainly like to know more about how her name alone ended up on the ballot in Michigan; without the facts, it's really just speculation to conclude it was something tricky.

Maybe the other ones didn't sign up to be on the ballot? Maybe citizens put her name on the ballot? Maybe she filed her name, no one lese filed theirs, and Michigan does not allow a name to be withdrawn? It's like any charge, you can't assume fault without proof.
&&&&&&&&
And all of you:

All this talk you have about how Hillary is breaking a contract by standing up for voters to be heard is not going to win in the court of public opinion which will think it's a confusing mess and holy shit, Obama is in there trying to deny seats to delegates that millions of voters voted for.

No, I have no shame, OK? Stop asking me I have any shame. Shame? No. Got none. None. Nada. Shameless. That's me: Fresh out o'shame.

If I did, would I be talking to you?

So... Hillary Clinton is NOT a Democratic Party Insider? Seriously? If Hillary isn't an insider, then who is?

Did Hillary agree to all of the rules for Nevada, Michigan and Florida because the, uh, party insiders used their vast power to forcer her to agree? Damn you, party insiders! Leave Hillary alone!

So you figure once Hillary has her day, the stranglehold of the damn party insiders will at last be broken? Sweet!

Obviously the polling in FL showed that HRC was going to win. She knew it and Obama knew it. Obama could have gone there after the voting was over to greet his supporters but he didn't want to highlight his loss.

When this year's loopholes are exploited by the Republicans it will be great to hear that it's not fair from the Obama supporters.

BTW how would we feel about having a small group of Dems deciding that the WA primary would be moved up and the national party deciding we would have no say in the nomination?

Oh and if Obama gets the nomination will the FL delegates be seated?

I'm still thinking uncommitted but the more gets said the less I want Obama supporters, Obama is OK.

Hey elechos, I wouldn't bring factcheck.org into this because they RIPPED Obama apart for the last debate where he was caught lying NUMEROUS times while Hillary was smelling like roses.
But you don't want to hear it, so just ignore it. Anyone else who is interested, I recommend taking a look at it because it's very interesting. It also has a more sensible look at the Bill Clinton/Obama thing that got blown way of proportion by the media (which I don't think was either the fault of Clinton or Obama, just the media).

cressona@6:

...pure Kucinich/Nader types and the purely impure Boss Tweed/Clinton types...

You need a vacation. Some place warm and sunny.

group therapy, you're an asshole for saying I don't want to hear it. I'm well aware of what factcheck.org says about Obama, and I encourage everyone to read it.

I think you are a jerk for stereotyping me as your imaginary enemy. I never made any of the kinds of generalizations you think I did. I'm well aware of Obama's flaws, and I don't dispute them.

I deal in specifics. I ask questions about specific points of fact. I spend most of my time arguing with ham fisted debate club captains whose only weapon is the straw man.

Huh. Interesting.

He's still better than Clinton.

Here's a little on the agreement - looks like they agreed to not campaign but not to deny seating the delegations.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the cable networks could not eliminate Florida from the national buy. He added that the campaign sought and received permission from Carol Fowler, the Democratic chair, in the last remaining early state, South Carolina.

On Aug. 31, the top six Democrats all agreed to skip campaigning in states that violated the Democratic National Committee's calendar, which placed Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina first. The DNC later punished Florida and Michigan by taking away all their delegates. But the close race and the advantage going into Feb. 5's 20-plus state primary makes Florida irresistible.

John Deeth :: Vilsack Questions Obama on Early State Pledge
Iowans, of course, saw many candidate ads on cable, but those were local buys. The Obama ads in question are national buys on CNN and MSNBC. A Clinton press release charges:

These ads are a clear and blatant violation of the early-state pledge that Senator Obama and the other leading Democratic candidates signed last year.
The early state pledge was crystal clear in its prohibition against any kind of campaign activity (outside of fund-raising) in states that do not adhere to the DNC calendar. There is no ambiguity. Among the list of prohibited activities are 'electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state.'" (According to Nielsen, there are 6.6 million TV households in Florida that receive CNN through either local cable systems or satellite dishes. This represents 92 percent of all Florida TV households.)

"We certainly weren't happy about the pledge, but we have scrupulously abided by it," Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a national co-chairwoman for Clinton, said on the conference call. "Now, it's time to review all the options on the table." Those options could include any kind of campaign activity.

Clinton/Obama 2008!

Big Sven @53 to me: You need a vacation. Some place warm and sunny.

You are so right. Actually, I was thinking of campaigning for BO this past weekend in CA, but then I realized that wouldn't exactly be a vacation. Ended up just doing some phone banking from home.

Anyway, you are so right. I've got to find an excuse to go to Arizona.

And I was over the top putting the Clintons on the Boss Tweed "purely impure" end of the corruption spectrum. I mean, if the Clintons are a 10 on that scale, where does that leave Bush? Way, way off the charts.

Cress- kudos on volunteering for your candidate. Phone banking sucks when you're calling independents (Dems are usually at least polite.)

I wanted to do something for HRC, but I'm not yet really plugged into the Dem scene (just moved here a couple of years ago) so I haven't. Other than my relentless propoganizing on the SLOG, I mean. ;^)

I'm hoping that going to my caucus will kick start this process. I was pretty involved in DFL politics back in Lake Wobegon...

I've been phone banking this campaign season and I have to say, it does kinda suck. People ARE polite for the most part, but I hate feeling like I'm intruding on their time like a telemarketer. I wish there was something less "intrusive" one could do for one's candidate but I guess that's kind of the point of politics. You have to get in people's faces. Anyway, so yeah Cressona, mad props for phone banking for your candidate as well. It's a thankless job.

elenchos--
Apologies if I did put you in that odious category of Obamatons*, who are all too common on the Slog. One does get a bit defensive when being harangued for having an opinion. I made a mistake and I am sorry for offending you.

*These are of course very different than Obama supporters, who are lovely people through and through. Obamatons are like your least favorite holier-than-thou "liberal" acquaintance who thinks s/he knows everything and never. shuts. the. fuck. up.

This story is the death rattle of the cynical, soulless, hopeless out of date yesteryear Clintons and the MSM establishment lackies who do their bidding. The only real demographic that's keeping the reverse co-presidency Clintons alive now are women who apparently vote with their pussy instead of their brains. But more and more of them who actually listen to what Barak and Michelle Obama are saying will jump ship eventually.

Then we shall have a brave new world of the future to try and reconstruct this cynical fear ridden piece of shit existence we been living under these same thing over and over weasels into a real form of life.

Bring on fucking distempered old foggy McCain and Obama will slice and dice his death march to the sea endless war philosophy of a campaign into little bitty pieces.

It's a fucking non story! Clinton herself co-sponsored the freaking bill with Obama.

@47 has link to Obama website fact check please read it.

I'm really irritated by the characterization of women Hillary supporters only voting for her because they also have a vagina. As far as women's issues, Hillary has a track record of working for women and families that Obama doesn't have. She and Janet Reno created the Office on Violence Against Women in the State Department, and has been working as an advocate for women, children and families for years. This, in addition to many other reasons may be why many women support her.

Please do not read this as me saying that women who choose not to vote for Hillary are doing anything wrong. I do not care who you are voting for when it comes to this issue. What I am saying is that every woman (just like every man) is capable of making an informed decision weighed on what issues are important to her. Characterizing women voters as unable to think as critically as their male counterparts (or as not doing so) is incredibly demeaning to all women.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I generally like the guy. I disagree with him about some things, but I think he genuinely wants to do what is best for the country. I don't think he would EVER endorse a supporter of his THINKING that women are "voting with their pussies", let alone saying it. The rhetorical implications of that statement are absolutely disgusting, sexist and deplorable.

This Exelon thing does make me cringe a little, but why for the first time reading something like this about a politician do I actually think there might be a decent explanation.

Here is the fundamental thing, though: imagine a scenario where Clinton beats McCain. I can´t. (And NOT because she´s female.)