“Did you even read the article???”

Yes. Did you happen to notice that I directly quote from Krugman and respond to what he said? Did you also notice that this is responding not only to this article but is part of an entire series of articles responding to Krugman’s columns and blog posts attacking Obama. Did you even read the links to follow the whole discussion before making such an accusation?

“Why don’t you print the article with yours, so we can see how embarrassingly misleading you have been????”

Have you ever heard of copyright laws. That’s why the post includes links–which prove my post is not at all misleading if you actually bother to read them before jumping in with a comment like this.

“care about a man with such little experience”

If you care about a man with “such little experience” what about Clinton who has far less experience than Obama?

The Chicago newspapers as well as fellow members of the legislature have defended Obama on this issue. Voting present is a common practice in the Illinois legislature. Clinton dwells on smears like this to avoid the real issues.

“You are misinformed or lying when you claim Obama has a superior health care plan.”

Again you show a preference of insults over rational discussion or presenting evidence. Clinton’s health care plan has not received the type of support you claim. The American Medical Association has not endorsed Clinton. If you actually read their newsletter, as I do, you would see that they are very critical of her plan. Similarly many economists are critical of her plan.

The arguments on mandates are total nonsense. Mandates lead to a more expensive plan, not a less expensive plan. Mandates require money to pay for an enforcement mechanism. Under mandates there is no need to get the price down as people are forced to buy. Without mandates Obama is forced to make sure the cost is affordable. The free rider argument is also nonsense. There re many ways to build incentives into a plan to purchase early and disincentives to wait until you need the coverage. Medicare currently does this with the Part D plan which is voluntary. Obama has provided specific answers to this question, but of course you haven’t bothered to read what he actually said and instead just repeat talking points from the Clinton campaign.

“YES, Obama supporters are hero worshipping followers that care less about the issues that affect us–health care, the economy, the staggering rise of foreclosure that folks like Oprah have the luxury not to worry about.”

No, we are not hero worshipers. Obama is just one of many potential candidates who have good proposals and is qualified to be president. Obama has far better plans on health care, foreclosures, and the economy as I show in several posts here. In contrast, Clinton has presented a pack of plans which don’t hold up to scrutiny. The Washington Post compared their economic recover plans. Obama received an A- while Clinton’s plan received a C-.

“–and are employing vicious tactics to smear Hillary Clinton, then snarling “Well, they started it!” when anyone dares point out how ridiculous they are behaving.”

Just reading the tone of your comment shows what nonsense this is. I responded to Clinton’s smears with facts. My facts are backed up with hard evidence if you follow the links. What smears against Clinton? Arguing with facts are not smears. Clinton has employed dishonest Rove style smears against Obama while Obama vowed not to engage in such tactics, and has kept his word.

“Lincoln consistently took unpopular, difficult positions and stoop up for what he believed.”

Just like Obama who speaks about fuel economy in Detroit, or speaks about merit pay for teachers before a group of teachers.

“He certainly didn’t vote Present because he was plotting his run for the Presidency asap.”

Again, repeating this dishonest smear. The President of NOW has commended Obama’s present vote on abortion as being a courageous vote to help their cause.

“Obama is going to introduce prayer in schools and religion in goverment”

That’s absurd considering the number of times Obama has spoken out about the importance of separation of church and state–even before religious groups. This is just one area where Obama’s experience pays off as he has had the experience teaching Constitutional law.

“we’ll have a republican easily follow him in 4 years.”

Again you argue with smears rather than anything of substance. This makes absolutely no sense considering that it is Obama who receives the support of independents and Republicans while they oppose Clinton. Remember, it was Hillary Clinton who was greatly responsible for the Democrats losing control of Congress the last time the Clintons were in power. Bill Clinton only managed to stay in office due to his tremendous political skills. Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton so don’t count on her being able to do so.

Obama is going to introduce prayer in schools and religion in goverment…and what a surprise…we’ll have a republican easily follow him in 4 years.

Another typical Obama supporter, acting shocked and dismayed that us ‘regular, uneducated, lower class’ folks care about a man with such little experience that we have to discern what on earth kind of bravery and ‘new politics’ it is to vote PRESENT! Yes, the CHICAGO TRIBUNE criticized this record as well.

You are misinformed or lying when you claim Obama has a superior health care plan. The American Medical Association has endorsed Hillary because of her superior plan, and economists across the country have compared the two and overwhelmingly concluded hers is dramatically lower in costs. Obama has been hit on not having a mandate, which will actually make it more expensive health care because people won’t buy into it until they need it, which drives up the cost for everyone. Obama’s response is that he will come up with a way to punish those who do that…typically he did not get specific.

YES, Obama supporters are hero worshipping followers that care less about the issues that affect us–health care, the economy, the staggering rise of foreclosure that folks like Oprah have the luxury not to worry about–and are employing vicious tactics to smear Hillary Clinton, then snarling “Well, they started it!” when anyone dares point out how ridiculous they are behaving.

Why don’t you rich white people, and young college folks–all of you who undoubtedly have yet to worry about health coverage or mortgage payments–stick to voting for personalities on American Idol, and let these candidates go at it.

On the other hand Sen. Obama shares a view that we need to bring america together and make real change!!! He has the vision to change how the World view us meaning AMERICA !!!! This race has little to due with experience but WHO WILL MAKE CHANGE FOR THE GREATER GOOD!!! The next president will surely be bogged down in clearing the MESS OF G.W. & will need fresh ideas, new concepts, and a different view on what will make us a great nation. He must change the way the world view us!!! Remember that after every two term president there goes a recession. History has shown this. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton left the next office holder in a recession. G.W. never really got us out it. Although he gave it a good try even after 9/11.

And now they are pounding the sexism issue to unite women, a true, practical way of winning, but I think disingenuous, again. Yes, pimping is an inappropriate word. He apologized, but that doesn’t seem to satisfy. They keep harping the issue into a bigger sexism issue by MSNBC and all the media.

The reason he chose the word pimp is because the clintons were severely protective of Chelsea, and now suddenly they have her making superdelegate calls, because they think she can be effective. Her privacy was always their number one concern, and they had an agreement from the news media not to cover Chelsea and let her grow up. It was a DRAMATIC change to have Chelsea campaign, and was apparently decided because hillary was losing the young vote badly, and because they were trying to softer Hillary’s Image by showing her mother, and showing her daughter. This is the root of the comment, that after all this over/highly protective attitude, they have suddenly decided she can be of good use to their political aims, so forget protecting her for her own good. Schusters comment, although a totally inappropriate use of words, had a thread of truth that maybe they were injecting Chelsea into the campaign for their own gain.

“I personally do not see how the Floridians or Michiganders are being disenfranchised as they will still have a Democratic nominee to vote for in the general election.”

The problem with this argument, as with so many of the Clinton arguments, is that there is a grain of truth but the Clintons use it to distort the issue.

Michigan and Florida are disenfranchised from the perspective that we don’t have a say with regards to the nominee. However, the Clinton solution is no solution. For her to take the majority of the delegates because she kept her name on the Michigan ballot does not mean that this result fairly reflects the views of Michigan Democrats.

If disenfranchisement was Clinton’s real concern, she would push to have a primary or caucus under party rules where there is a fair distribution of the delegates. Instead she pushes for an unfair solution which only benefits her.

It was politically tone deaf. There is no upside in saying that Washington politicians are better than a morally based grassroots movement where people gave their lives. It was people who stood non-violently against vicious dogs, the brilliant rhetoric based on biblical and moral scholars, and the work of brilliant lawyers like Thurogood Marshall who picked apart segregation and revealed it in a manner that shocked basic decency in the minds of Americans. It took a courageous Supreme Court hearing brilliantly argued cases. LBJ did knock heads to get the Civil Rights Act through to his credit, but he did so from the safety of the Whitehouse.

She and Bill may not have meant to be racist. It was just an unnecessary thing to say. She didn’t stop to think how that would make african-americans feel and it is that insensitivity that came across as she was taking them for granted.

This comment was said to build herself up in comparison to Obama’s grassroots campaign. Then she wonders why people react to her the way they do. She is making light of a movement that encourages people to retake the government and create change for themselves. We want to change politics and they way we treat each other. They are young people who only know a Bush or a Clinton in office and want something different. We want a leader who will inspire our best instincts.

I support Obama, but I will vote for Hillary in the General Election if she is the nominee. I have yet to find a fellow Obama supporter that couldnt be convinced that allowing the republicans to win is just crazy. We will come together to keep the republicans out, but we may not be as enthused with Clinton as we were for Obama. It will be the old, same old — voting against instead of voting for someone.

Obama has made clear that he is a person of integrity, honesty and lots of moral clarity combined with principled purpose. He is far more of a statesman than a politician.

For the rules to change after the fact would indeed be wrong and unjust. Just like in the debate when Obama answered first and straightforwardly to the question ‘what is a weakness’. Only to have his opponents comeback with I am too passionate about poverty and I am too impatient for change.

Obama doesn’t feel a need to weasel about such and he knew to follow the rules of the DNC would be the best way to go.

Hillary should not be rewarded for essentially not following the rules.

I personally do not see how the Floridians or Michiganders are being disenfranchised as they will still have a Democratic nominee to vote for in the general election.

In the end, most Obama supporters will probably support her over McCain, even if Obama is not the VP, IF and ONLY IF, she wins the nomination with Integrity.

This means specifically, that the delegates from FL and Michigan cannot be seated according to the voting b/c Obama agreed not to campaign there.

AND, if Obama has won more delegates, that the Clinton machine doesn’t lock up the super delegates with promises of powerful positions, and the super delegates vote Hillary in on their own.

Either of these abuses of power, and machinations of party politics rears its ugly head, and i guarantee you Obama voters will vote for the republican, even if it is Huckabee.

Obama supporters will accept these terms if the shoe is on the other foot. However, where it gets really interesting is what if Clinton has the popular vote, but Obama the delegate count and the most states? Then the Clintons and superdelegates can feel comfortable relying on the superdelegates, and may be able to pull it off. If not, her supporters will be very unhappy, and this is bad for both sides. If it is indeed this close, then I think John Edwards ends up selecting the VP. Clinton I think will happily have him as the VP, but I don’t know if he is the best choice for Obama. If Obama picks clinton, then her divisiveness still motivates the republicans, but if he picks Edwards, the Clinton donors and supporters will be up in arms. Let’s hope the voters make a clear decision, because every other option leaves somebody very, very angry.

For instance, my father was never going to vote for Clinton based on what he believed to be her lack ethics in her pursuit of power. He was a non supporter of Clinton before he became a supporter of Obama. So yes, if Clinton wins the nomination he will not vote for her. He’s an independent voter and opts to vote for who he views to be the best candidate regardless of party lines.

Clinton’s campaign attempted to discredit Obama’s wins this weekend by saying that “activists” are more likely to attend caucuses and they don’t represent the voice of the majority. Bush use the same method and language to squelch the voice of the millions of people around the world who protested the Iraq war. She needs to change her strategy if she wants to appeal to independent voters.

He should have said:

“If Mrs Clinton is serious that LBJ was more responsible for advancing peaceful civil rights in this country, I guess she probably thinks President Johnson is more deserving of the coming holiday. If she tries to change the name from MLK Day to LBJ Day however, I will do everything I can to oppose her and I know I have the facts and the American people on my side”.

When Bill pulled the Jesse Jackson card after the SC primary, any respect for this disingenuous, double-talking, good cop/bad cop team of ultra-ambitious freaks was gone forever.