I have to disagree, NL - Hillary adopting McCain's attacks (or previewing them) is actually good for Obama's chances in the general. If Obama weathers them and wins, then when McCain recycles the attacks it shoudl be easy for Obama to say "yes I have heard that before, doesnt McCain have anything new" and dispatch it.
If Obama cant weather Hillarys attacks and loses, then he was a weak general election candidate - Ohio is important in holding Obama to the relaities of the actual challenge of running for president as opposed to running for celebrity icon.
I am in favor of Obama but I want him to FIGHT for it. In my view the longer Hillar stays in, and the harder she hits him with McCain-type attacks, the better.
NL, you know I am pro Obama, but I dont think that the Canadian givernment is the more trustworthy source here. Given the choice between a government denial and a journalist, I choose the latter. CTV isnt some right wing blogger.
I think its likely that someone in the Oama campaign exceeded their authority. The right thing to do is for Obama to find out who spoke to the embassy and dump them publicly and disavow the whole thing.
I want Obama to win - see my diary I just posted - but I also want him to be battle tested and see how he performs under pressure. Heres the first hurdle. He'd best react properly. Denial and insisting that I believe a PR flack is not the right approach. We dont take The White House at face value, do we?
OK since you asked and we are OT anyway, I think that the response from HRC's campaign,namely "why are you upset about the photo, BHO?" was so disingeneous it turned my stomach. They had the gall to pretend the perception of the photo was harmless? Yes the photo is perfectly fine but they know full well the effect of releasing it anyway. It was such a cynical move that it was almost certainly planned.
I dont think anyone is free of bias, but Jerome probably does come at Obama from a default critical perspective. Still, the general question of partisanship and a progressive movement is probably better discussed after the primary. not during. Only because the primary is so distracting.
saying that Jerome has been "fighting" Obama is what i consider the insult. I welcome the Movement, but even during the Dean days I applied tough love. If our Chosen One can't take our own critiques, then how will he take the critique of the opposition?
Jerome is critical of Obama, and he shoudl be. Obama would be even stronger if his fervent supporters were restrained in their effusiveness and a little bit more critical, too.
I understand you've chosen a side and I applaud your dedication to it. If you look at my last diary, you will see that I was actually for Hillary earlier myself, despite very real concerns about her position on various issues (not least of which being her willingness to throw muslims under the bus, a trait that her recent chicanery with the Obama photo only underscored).
But the point I am making here is that Obama has done what Trippi foretold. Regardless of issues, the movement is real, and it represents a gigantic change in how we do politics. This is not going to be limited to the left either.
I think it's fine to disagree with Obama on policy. personally I believe either candidate would make a fantastic president. But my point here is about something else - about process.