It appears to me that the media may be on the verge of failing again. The coverage of Obama has been all about his large crowds, endorsements and campaign contributions. There is nary a note of skepticism in the media about his qualifications to be president. Hillary on the other hand has not been treated so kindly (to put it mildly.)

I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours.

I agree it's troubling, but Obama ain't the only one.  Anybody who is slavishly devoted to any of these piker candidates needs their head examined.

Also, being inspirational isn't a good quality in a candidate.

While looking at Raw Story today, there was a headline in teeny-tiny print that said: "Dean warns of "big" fight at convention--Clinton camp: $4M raised since Tuesday. Then in huge red print, right under the Clinton headline, it says "LIVE UPDATE: OBAMA DONATIONS BREAK $7.5M SINCE TUESDAY!"

It seems all the big blogs like Huffpost, Raw Story and AmericaBlog are all a part of the Obama cult. The only thing that Huffpost writes about Clinton is that she cried and something about a phone call from Chelsie on "The View".

Obama is about inspiration. Hillary is about knowledge and competence. That's why she wants debates and he does not. He can't keep up in that arena. His stump speech is always the same and it's getting tiresome.

First off, Obama has no problem having another debate.  He just doesn't want to do 4 more.  Honestly I don't see the value in doing more than one or two more.  It's pretty well established where they stand on the issues (right next to eachother).

Second, Obama has tremendous knowledge and competence.  Go look at an interview with him some time and tell me he doesn't know what he's talking about.  As for competence, he's demonstrated competence in the Illinois State Senate and his short time in the national Senate.  Also, I'm sorry but you don't build a successful national campaign without some competence.

The reason Hillary wants debates is because she's generally done better in them than Obama.  Though in the first one on one debate, it was pretty much a tie with some parts favoring either candidate.  Obama has never particularly liked debates and prefers meeting people one on one and giving speeches.  They both want to play to their strengths.  Duh?

His stump speeches actually do vary.  He does call on consistent themes, for sure.  Most critically, and in dispute of the "messianic" commentary, is that he's consistently calling on US to do it.  Not him.  He says, vote for me so that WE can do this.  Hillary says, vote for me so that I can do this.  Maybe it's all rhetoric, but Obama fundamentally gets something that hasn't been well understood since Kennedy: the American people like to be challenged.

We don't want our president to save us or anything like that.  What we want is our president to lead.  To point the way and challenge us to go there.  After 9/11, a common disappointment was that we weren't challenged.  We were told to go shop rather than asked to seriously help fix problems we had.  Hillary isn't out there challenging us to do anything, she's wanting us to put her into office so we can have her steady hand guide the ship of state while we get back to whatever it was we were doing.

Obama inspires some people one way; Hillary inspires others another way.  You prefer Hillary to Obama so his way gets trashed.

This is sliming by negative association that I expect from a lazy MSM not from an otherwise thoughtful blog.

I know you're reaching when you quote Joe Klein.  Klein can't even get his reasoning straight.  Obama has done well in caucus states like Minnesota and Iowa because he has brought many new voters to the process not firing up "hard core activists".

I witnessed the massive outpouring of new voters firsthand in St. Paul where hundreds and hundreds of voters (many college age and many new US citizens) overwhelmed the Junior High where the caucus was held.  Once the official ballots ran out, we ended up writing on choice on a piece of paper and dropping it in a box like we were handing out valentines in 2nd grade.

Sloppy Joe can't see that Hillary has done better with the traditional Democratic core and Obama has done better with the youth vote.  Even if he can see reality, it is inconvenient to his storyline so it must be ejected.

All this style over substance blather is pure media speculation.  Congratulations for participating in the Media Group Think.  No one can honestly say which of the two would be the better executive.  We can have opinions, but can't speak with any authority.  Each would have their own management style, but neither style would be guaranteed to succeed or to flop.

As for the debates, I haven't seen where either one has bested the other.  Both have proven their mettle.  I am disappointed that Clinton seems to have signed on for a Fox News debate.  Fox News is the propaganda arm of the GOP.  The Democratic Party doesn't need to give the enemy ratings and advertising dollars.

When the dust settles, you have to ask yourself, who do you want selecting the next Supreme Court Justice:  a Republican President of a Democratic President?

The only person responsible for this is Obama. However, since so many supporters (rightfully) feel it is their job to get between Obama and his detractors, it appears that you folks are in direct line to get hit with stuff aimed at him. It isn't personal, it's politics.

I've heard much less coverage of his legislative history and his current policies and stands. But, the NYTimes did do an article about one of his Senate legislative attempts--to require nuclear power plant operators to inform the public of leaks, based on some leaks of radiated cooling water into the groundwater and contaminating drinking water sources.

The article said Obama began with a strong language requiring the operators to inform the public, then, to gain Republican support (R's were in charge of the Senate at that time) he lowered the requirements to finally become voluntary compiance to be decided by the NRC and the operators.  

This seemed to be BushLite--corporate voluntary standards. Great.

But--is this article fair? Anyone knowledgeable about this issue know more? The NYTimes can be good--but they can also not be so good, so how's this article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

I'm reposting this because it was on an older thread and only got one reply--which noted, per the article, that while Obama did not get this legislation passed he said he did in a campaign appearance.  

Now, if Al Gore had made such a mistake all MCM hell would break loose. But, with our MCMers' lack of concern or attention to Obama's actual record, we get little input from them.

I woke up actually afraid we might end up with huge voters' remorse when the press finally did begin to explicate more on what he's done--or not done.

I mean really Jeralyn, I can't believe you would essentially label millions of democrats who support Barack Obama as being some kind of cultists.

I dont think so. On what basis can you claim that? They are both about knowledge and competence. Obama ADDS inspiration.

"That's why she wants debates and he does not."

I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that Hillary wants debates because she wants free media time, and because she is hoping against hope that the relatively less experienced Obama just might make a gaffe - something she is less likely to do.

"His stump speech is always the same"

Duh....thats why they call it a stump speech.

Its always the same because, unlike us political junkies, the actual voters never hear it until the show comes to their town. This is news?

"His words aren't gospel "

Thank you. We peasants have such trouble figuring things like that out.

"I hope the hype stops soon. Maybe if more of us write about it, it will."