Nice to see that at least some people are ready to give her a little respect. Those of us who supported Hillary never had any doubt but that she would fully support Obama. I reckon she's done more for the Democratic Party than anyone on this thread who is so quick to judge her. You guys come up with this fever dream about her undermining Obama in her speech, then treat it like some "will she or won't she" moment, ignoring the fact that the entire thing lives in your own imaginations.

As for the Obama haters, it's more than a little funny to see people all wound up about the haters, considering the amount of Hillary hate that has lived on this board for months, and continues to be promoted by people like vicissitudes.

As for the notion that she didn't "embrace" Obama, so what? No losing candidate has ever been as effusive in their support. But of course, a lot of Obama supporters won't be satisfied until she aplogizes for running, and declares that Obama was the better candidate all along.

Does anyone see the irony in praising Hillary for saying it's not about her, it's about the policies, then criticizing her for saying she supports Obama's policies, and didn't make it about him?

Posted at August 27, 2008 2:02 PM in response to New York Times: Hillary Speech Partly Driven By Ambition

Are you people insane? What evidence do you have that the house thing is gaining any traction? I can't count the number of times I've come here and seen you all declaring how "devastating" something is going to be for McCain. You really think if Obama says something that pleases you, then the voters at large will respond the same way.

I used to work in advertising, and it was a common occurrence to have people submit ideas for commercials. No idea of the long term strategy or messaging, just whatever they thought was clever. From reading this thread its clear that politics is like running a sports team; everyone thinks they can do it.

This is the one that killed me: "What does it mean to have a network of online commentators whose analysis of a campaign is constant and immediate?" Do you really think these guys who have been running campaigns for years in places like Chicago really give a shit about the advice from a bunch of bloviating commenters who think they're qualified to give campaign adbice because they comment a lot on blogs? The level of self regard and self congratulation never ceases to amaze me at this circle jerk.

I still think Obama's going to win, but he was pathetic in that clip. You're congratulating him for using ridicule? Ridicule implies at least a dollop of humor. That was dry as toast. I don't suppose any of you noticed there wasn't a single applause break during that entire clip. Obama can't say anything without getting applause breaks. Yeah, he really got McCain alright.

Posted at August 21, 2008 9:18 PM in response to Obama Himself Unleashes Broad Populist Attack On McCain

Besides the celeb ads, a lot of what has given McCain traction is offshore drilling. A majority of voters favor it, at least in the last polls I saw. It may not be a policy you like, but it is a policy and voters agree with McCain. Dismissing his supporters as sheep purely driven by emotion is simply stupid. There's no question that McCain's playing rough, but there are policy issues involved, as well.

It may have served Obama well during the primaries to keep crowing about his "judgement" in 2002, but that's only going to get him so far. Did you really think voters would go for him because he made a speech in a park six years ago? I think people are a lot less concerned with how it started than with how it's going to end. And a majority of the voters supported the invasion at the time. I'm not sure how much mileage Obama's going to get out of reminding them that he was right and they were wrong.

I know it comforts all of you to dismiss the voters as so much less informed as you, but it's a fool's game.

Posted at August 20, 2008 1:28 PM in response to Poll: McCain Takes National Lead; Even Besting Obama On The Economy

What a bunch of hypocrites. Obama was so superior to Hillary because he represented a new way of doing politics, healing the nation and bringing people together. How's that working out for ya? Have you figured out yet that Obama's schtick was what he thought would get him elected? Now that's not working, and we're seeing the same Chicago pol a lot of us saw all along.

And Hillary is unacceptable as a running mate, because of her AUMF vote and how she represents the "old" politics. Youy know, like all those other woman Presidents. So now it's "save us, Joe Biden." There is one big difference between Biden and Hillary, however. Hillary got 18 million people to vote for her. Biden got squat. Not to mention that Hillary kicked Obama's ass from February on.

But at least Obama won't pander just to get votes. Unless it's an about face on public financing, FISA, waffling on abortion, chasing right wing evangelists. But Hillary deserves criticism for voting the right way on FISA, because she didn't vote the way Obama did. What BS. I hope the FISA vote has woken a lot of you up to how Obama would have voted on AUMF, when he actually had something on the line.

And hey, Shrubbit, do you think the Obama camp should go on the attack? I'm not really sure, since you've only said it about seven or eight times. I guess I was distracted by your constant misuse of the word troll, or your insistence that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with you. I especially liked "Americans are not as intellectual as some of us nor as Obama, clearly" I can't understand where people got the notion that Obama and his supporters are elitists. I think those headphones are a little tight, buddy.

Posted at August 20, 2008 1:10 PM in response to Poll: McCain Takes National Lead; Even Besting Obama On The Economy

OK, Bachman's clearly a nutjob. But the fact is, we're not trying to save the planet, we're trying to save the people on the planet. I don't think pollution is threatening the existence of the planet, it's threatening our ability to live on it. The Earth will still be here after the human race is long gone.

Posted at August 12, 2008 4:22 PM in response to GOP Rep. To Environmentalists: Jesus Already Saved The Planet

"but the mere notion that the Obama campaign would turn away enthusiastic supporters for fears of coming across as a "celebrity" is the real mindless drivel."

So are you willfully misreading my comment, or is your reading comprehension that poor? Where exactly did I say that Obama shouldn't have held rallies? My point (which you conveniently ignored) was that the Obama campaign capitalized on the rock star story when it fit their needs. Are you really going to claim that the whole rock star persona was foisted on them, and they did nothing to foster it? Holy cow.

OK, you can all go back to telling each other how right you are, and what racists all of Obama's critics are.

Posted at August 11, 2008 3:39 PM in response to Obama Camp: McCain's "Celeb" Ad Is An Attack On Ordinary People

McCain's ad certainly lacked for substance, but I think Obama supporters are being a little hypocritical in their objections. Obama's campaign was happy to use Obama's celebrity status as a selling point all throughout the primaries, and still today with his Berlin speech. They were happy to reinforce the notion that the person who draws the most people to a rally is the superior candidate. All of the stories of people fainting and crying weren't made up from whole cloth. All I heard before the California primary was how many people Obama was drawing, and how pitiful Hillary's crowds were. As we saw in the actual election, that's not necessarily the telling point.

Obama's campaign was happy to push the whole rock star thing when it served their purposes. It's a little late to cry about it now.

And really, "it's not Obama's doing if he's a celebrity - it's our doing for making him one and the ads are an attack on us." More mindless drivel from HusseinTenaX. Really, poor Obama was forced to act like a celebrity. His campaign did nothing to promote it. Please. Although I certainly don't expect cogent analysis from anyone who adopted the name Hussein. I suppose you list "Obama" as your religion on Facebook, too?

Posted at August 11, 2008 3:08 PM in response to Obama Camp: McCain's "Celeb" Ad Is An Attack On Ordinary People

So I assume all of you people were equally outraged when Obama elected to give his speech in front of a big phallic symbol? How idiotic to try and smear McCain because he used an image of the tower Obama actually spoke in front of. And really, Tom Cruise? He hardly equals Britney and Paris in the public perception of being an airhead. Exactly which celebrities do you think would be equally recognizable and communicate the empty-head message? Every suggestion I've seen (Oprah? really) is just ludicrous.

And you people keep claiming that the Obama campaign didn't use race in a disgusting way.

Posted at August 7, 2008 4:44 PM in response to Keith Olbermann makes an ass of himself

I know it feeds into your fever dreams that the evil Bill Clinton will lash out at Obama after the election, but if you read the interview, it's clear that he's pissed at people like Clyburn (with good reason.) The accomplishements of his administration were dismissed by Obama's surrogates, while he and his wife were painted as racists. Now he's supposed to just say "that's politics?"

And for all of you conspiracy theorists, it happens that Hillary is out campaigning for Obama earlier than any other runner-up. Obama ran a dirty campaign aginst her, but she's a loyal Dem and will work to get him elected. But to you folks, it's not legitimate unless she actually swoons over Obama like you do. Defeated candidates supprt the winner a lot of the time. Do you really think they're all gung ho about it?

If Hillary had won, would all of you Obama supporters be full of enthusiasm to support her? Would you just "get over it?" I doubt it.

Posted at August 7, 2008 4:35 PM in response to Obama Lets Bill Clinton Off The Hook

Please take off your blineders. Look at their name. They deal in facts. Because they don't take into account "everybody knows" stuff doesn't make them wrong. If it hasn't been factually established that all of the money is going to McCain, then it's not a fact, is it? And it is entirely possible that a portion of the money is going to downticket candidates. The guy at the top of the ticket doesn't get support on the ground in every state just by asking. He spreads some of the love around. In a Presidential year a lot of downticket races hurt for money because so many donors are focused on the POTUS race. Do you think Obama and Hillary gave all that money to super delgates because they had too much cash laying around?

Factcheck.org isn't wrong just because they don't buy into your assumptions.

Posted at August 6, 2008 2:38 PM in response to FactCheck.org Gets Obama Energy Ad Wrong