In Time, Mark Halperin provides a list of "Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows--Or Should Know." No. 7: "The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee--and that has an impact every day." We've come full circle. So confident have the Beltway media courtiers grown in their social and political status that what once was furiously denied is now boasted about. Politicians may come and go, but Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Tim Russert and Maureen Dowd preside over a permanent House of Lords.

I also think Obama cannot win, so I don't know why the Party is pushing so hard for him.

I really appreciate this place.  I really don't miss profanity and knee jerk ad hom attacks, let alone the casual use of words like "extremists" and "pathological liar" plus all the tired old memes.

1.  The Dems have and had the upper hand in this election. The country was ready for change, not people change, change in policy and direction.   Substantive change.  Obama change is just changing the players but keeping the policies.  
2.  Dem grass root issues should be and should have been the focus.
3.  If Hillary and Edwards were the core candidates the issues would have been the focus.
4.  Obama rushing his election and the Axelrod campaign, as I posted earlier experts at running, Astro Turf campaigns, fake grass roots campaigns--diverted from the issues.  Hillary and Edwards had some core policy differences that should have been directing our national agenda to be a Democractic.  Axelrod wanted a campaign that does not focus on policy or experience, he wanted this mess.  He said so much in the NY Times article.  Tired of posting the link.  

5.  The Democratic leadership should have sucked it up and not try to push Obama on the Democratic party this early.  Let the Democratic agenda win, not someone who constantly slaps the Dems with some unity illusion.  Dem unity would have been if all the cheerleaders for Obama were talking about healthcare, the war and the economy.  

6.  We could have won, with Hillary and or Edwards with Obama on the ticket.  Then, 8 more years.  Squandering of talents.  

I blame Kennedy, Kerry the whole boy gang for squandering a 16 year possibility down to a possible, maybe 4 years against a virtual cadaver of an opponent.  

Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.[30]

Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs--the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.[31]

Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).[32]

Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.[31]

Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.[33]

The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.[34]

The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.[35]

The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion--the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.[34]

Clinton worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people.[36]

Barck Obama - The Wizard of Oz

Mr. McCain, we're told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.

Mrs. Clinton, we're assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

Obama never credited the Selma march with his parents' getting together; he spoke of the civil rights movement as a whole which began in the 50s.  See snopes.com > politics > obama > Say what?  FWIW, the editorial that started the Selma/birthdate controversy also cited Al Gore's "claim" that he invented the internet.

Obama does speak Bahasa, one of the primary languages of Indonesia which he learned while living there.  The Indonesian ambassador to the US has remarked on his competence.

Obama did work on asbestos issues in public housing, and did not attempt to claim an exaggerted role.  See here for a documented refutation of this attack:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/02/19/just_because_someone_writes_it.php

Remember, that the fact that when a Democrat is involved in a scandal that party affiliation is rarely mentioned in the press is just a myth pushed by the right.

Very tangential of course - a multipartisan GOTV (2000)courtesy of a Canadian "fake news" staple, "This Hour Has 22 Minutes". Most readers will only recognize one or two faces but 4 out of 5 party leaders in Parliament and several well-known elected officials participate. I have no idea if Stephen Harper would allow this today.

Using the link symbol above the comment box is so easy (now that I know how to do it), I'd love to have access to it for any comments which accept HTML tage.

Is there any way to do that? Or is it blog site dependent.

I had thought it common knowledge that ABC News broke that story, but in the weeks afterward, the Rev. Wright controversy is characterized as an attack from Camp Clinton.

I just wanted to know if anyone has noticed this and /or can prove/disprove that Clinton had anything/nothing to do with the media reporting this story.

Not only has Obama regained his lead in the Gallup Daily tracking poll, but Hillary is actually polling lower than she ever has before. That's just one poll of course, but looking across the spectrum, it's clear that Hillary has been taking a pounding lately.

Basically Wright was railing because a NYTimes profile of Obama talked too little about Wright's effusive assessment of Obama and mentioned the fact that Wright was not permitted to speak when Obama announced his candidacy.

Perhaps Wright had a legitimate complaint, till he cast the author and the Times as egregious betrayers of all that is holy (including Barack).

Sample from his letter to Jodi Kantor: "When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible...Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development...you did not print that...Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana...I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times... You should do well with that paper, Jodi".

I imagine HuffPo reprinted the letter because, on the whole, it is an over-the-top praise poem to Obama, with heavy emphasis on his 'inherent' Christian nature.

Italians and Romans?  Cripes, the Israelites and Romans are not even allowed their own narrative.  

of course I don't see anyone Clinton supporter saying that so he must be talking about his supporters!!

Also says compares Primary to a movie that suddenly turned boring and long..

Primary 'A Good Movie That Lasted About A Half An Hour Too Long'

The partisan rancor here has become too strident here.  It has become little different from TaylorMarsh, DK, or the other places that have picked sides and encourage inner-party partisanship  as a means to promot their preferred candidate.

Does the constant shrinking of available pools of "good" information cause you to question your take on things?  At all?  I don't mean this to be mean, but when more and more of the world that you have formerly respected just works your last nerve ... at some point I'd think that it's time to question one's take on events.