I believe Clayton Melvin meant, "And I agree Hillary wants to (wait for President Bush to end the war)."

Which wouldn't make his comment impolite at all.

More hard hitting, insightful reporting on Obama from the "Swamp".

Meanwhile, what the "Swamp" isn't reporting is the latest NBC/WSJ Poll of Democrats, which has Clinton running away from Obama 44%-23%, or the CNN Poll which shows Clinton ahead 46%-23%.

Here's a thought -- If there's nothing to report about Obama on a given day then just don't write about Obama.

Bruce

Those numbers are so depressing...

I know the GOP wants Hillary to win, there is nobody they would rather run against. But that is what the Dems thought about Regan. What if she wins the primary (lord forbid) and goes on to win the Presidency (Oh, please, lord forbid it.) If that happens, and she was helped by GOPers like you, don't you think you're going to hate yourself for constantly yelling about how Hillary is winning?

The only good thing about the polls you quote is that it is still early. The Democrats tend to decide pretty late who they want, for example, Kerry was at, what, 4% at this time in 2002/2003? So these national polls, at least for the Dems, don't mean much.

Bruce,

Who are you supporting in the presidential campaign?

Was Obama really there or just his empty suit?

Clayton came with his Grandmother who prompted the question for him. I was there and watched the youngster try to get out the grandmothers comment/question. And to think she said she took him out of school so he could ask her question! Don't think he has an idea of what he really said or did.

Nice,
I bet if an (all) white Republican politician told a little black kid he looked like Buck Wheat....we'd have Maccaca x 10.
All the lefties would cry racism.

Oh, but I forgot.....its OBAMA and a left wing media.

And in a just completed poll that Bruce hopes you don't read:

Key findings about the Republican front-runners are:

* In Iowa, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, posts a solid lead, with support from 28% of GOP voters. Giuliani and Thompson trail with 16% each. Arizona Sen. John McCain's faltering campaign drew 7% in the survey.

* In New Hampshire, Romney tops Giuliani 28% to 23%, a lead that is within the poll's margin of error. McCain, who won the New Hampshire primary in 2000, is backed by 12%. Thompson drew 11%, showing little bounce from his splashy national campaign announcement via late-night television and webcast.

* In South Carolina, where Thompson is hoping to trade on his Southern roots, the former Tennessee senator leads Giuliani 26% to 23%, within the poll's margin of error. The result is a reversal from a Times/Bloomberg survey in June, when Giuliani outpolled Thompson.

Great, now the inexperienced, incapable Obama is taking advice from a seven year old!!!

How cute. Just like all the positive, fun reporting about President Bush. Not.

7-year-olds aren't known for their tact and diplomacy. No reason they SHOULD be. Young Master Melvin was by no means being impolite, just being 7.

THIS IS A PHSYCHIC LADY COMMENT;BEFORE I PREDICT CLINTON . BILL WIN TWICE-GOOD FOR AMERICA BETTER THAN BUSH TODAY- THEN WHEN BUSH JR. I SAID TO ALL MY FRIENDS- THAT IF AMERICA VOTE FOR REPUBLICAN AND THE BUSH?AMERICA CRUMBLED AND AMERICAN PEOPLE DISSATISFIED. I WAS RIGHT- I KNOW WHAT HAPPEN BUT ORDINARY PEOPLE DONT KNOW-THEY CANT SEE TRHIOUGH THE FUTURE THEY DONT KNOW WHAT REPOUBLICAN LOOKS LIKE. WE MADE MISTAKE TWICE UNDER THE REPUBLICAN PARTY /THEN CONGRESS/SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE.
I TLEL YOU TIS AGIN FOR THE THIRD TIME- NO MORE REPUBLICAN AND DONT TRUST THEM- THEY DONT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE HER EIN AMERICA-THEY DONT CRAETE JOB ALL THEY WANT TAKE AND TAKE. FOR THIER OWN BENIFITS.UNION VOTE FOR BUSH THE MAJORITY WHAT THEY GOT?TODAY IS A PROMISE/AND LIES. I TOLD THEM DONT THEY WONT LISTEN. NOW YOU PEOPLE WONT LISTEN AGAIN?ITS YOUR COUNTRY CRUBLED AGAIN IF YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN.DUH
I PREDICT THIS YEAR IS 2007-AND HILLARY WAS BORN 1947 -LBRA-CUSP SCORPIO- OCT. 26 THERE FRE ITS HER YEAR 2007(BIRTHYEAR 1947)
PLUS LIBRA-PEACE AND BALANCE(LAW) AND HER CUSP SCORPIO- HARD WORKING AND CARING BORN LADY.
AGAIN COMMENT FROM A PHSYCHIC LADY'

OBAMA TRAITS ARE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVES;
BORN AUG.1961
1961-OX YEAR BORN TOUGH GUY;
NEG.TRAITS ARE;
PHONEY/NAGGER/AUTHORITATIVE/PRACTICAL/ORGANIZED/CAREFUL/
ELOQUENT/.
HIS NEG. TRAITS ARE;
BIASED/CHAUVENISTIC/COLD/COMPLACENT/CONSERVATIVE/DOGMATIC/DULL/EASILY ANGERED/EASILY AGITATED/ECCENTRIC/GLOOMY/HOT-TEMPERED/INTOLERANT/MATERIALISTIC/STUBBORN.
COMMNETS FROM A CLAIRVOYANT LADY.BIRTHYEAR TRAITS READER.

Roger Morris, there's an all-caps post -- that I didn't bother to read of course. It was by "Anonymous". Please tell us that's you and not the other "Anonymous" whose posts have exhibited quite a fair amount of reason thus far.

I find it amusing that after almost a year of dirt-digging, Obama detractors can only come up with:

1. racial slants with no basis;
   
2. early polls which are historically inaccurate;
   
3. morphing "Obama" into "Osama" or using his middle name sarcastically;
   
4. worst of all, taking the opponents' mantra of "inexperience" -- another lie -- and repeating it ad nauseum until readers believe it simply through osmosis.

Folks, this is classic political manipulation, and we're falling for it yet again. It's no wonder that Bush was elected twice, with as lazy as we've become in our press and our own sound-byte culture.

I challenge all Americans to do real research on every candidate before coming to a conclusion, rather than basing your vote on a knee-jerk reaction to the skewed "spin" that has taken over what used to be known as Freedom of the Press.

Every candidate has a website with views and experience listed clearly. Read them all, take them with a grain of salt, and make your own informed choice. Vote your conscience.

I have, and I've come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is the first candidate in my entire life that's actually in a Presidential race for altruistic reasons. Add to that his detailed, thoughtful solution to the Iraq quagmire, and a history of unification for real results, and you have, in my opinion, the Real Thing.

Hillary: 8 years in US Senate

Obama: 8 years in Illinois Senate, 2 years US Senate

Who is more experienced?

Take a look at photos of the first two A.G.s that were rejected. They were Bill's picks. Look at Janet Reno's mug. Hillary obviously has experience picking the female help.

Bigdawg,

It wasn't me, and thanks for the compliment.

Trish Gray,

Obviously you haven't been reading this blog, or any of the objective reporting out there (there is some, believe it or not) such as the very recent Boston Globe piece detailing Obama's long history of sucking up to Lobbyists and PACs and large corporations.

NPR (not exactly Right Wing you must agree) did an extensive story along the same lines about a year ago. Check their website.

So did very Liberal/Left Harper's Magazine. (See a pattern here? It's not just the Republican Right who object to Obama.)

In addition to that, we also talk about Obama as an operatchik of The Cook County Democratic Machine, and how from there comes his sleazy deal with Resco, his cozy relationship with the equally sleazy Strogers and others.

I and others have brought these items up repeatedly. And we'll continue to do so throughout the campaign, so keep reading here and get an education.

But besides the well documented corruption we also talk about Mr Fluff's intellectual vacuity. Obama's a veritible fount of bumper sticker slogans and nothing else.

Racist comments in The Swamp are extremely rare. I can't remember the last time I've read one about Obama.

So I really don't know where you come up with your "Obama detractors can only come up with" list. Certainly not The Swamp.

I suggest you follow your own advice and do "real research". That means looking beyond the bull droppings found on campaign websites.

Trish,

The reason "they" can't find nothing on Senator Boy Wonder is that he has done nothing.

Racist comments in The Swamp are extremely rare. I can't remember the last time I've read one about Obama.

So I really don't know where you come up with your "Obama detractors can only come up with" list. Certainly not The Swamp.

I suggest you follow your own advice and do "real research". That means looking beyond the bull droppings found on campaign websites.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2007 9:13 PM

Anti-Obama Troll,
You've made plenty of racist comments about Obama when you were on here useing other post names, you meathead.
You can't even decide on a "new" post name for yourself, why should anyone care what you "think", no one does.

I bet if an (all) white Republican politician told a little black kid he looked like Buck Wheat....we'd have Maccaca x 10.
All the lefties would cry racism.

Posted by: JD | September 13, 2007 3:46 PM

JD,

Are you suggesting "Opie" had the same racial/racist elements as "Buckwheat"?

Nice TRY. But the similarity isn't even close.

Opie was a positive image produced for whites by whites. Buckwheat was an inside joke told by whites to whites.

THIS IS A PHSYCHIC LADY COMMENT;BEFORE I PREDICT CLINTON . BILL WIN TWICE-GOOD FOR AMERICA BETTER THAN BUSH TODAY- THEN WHEN BUSH JR. I SAID TO ALL MY FRIENDS- THAT IF AMERICA VOTE FOR REPUBLICAN AND THE BUSH?AMERICA CRUMBLED AND AMERICAN PEOPLE DISSATISFIED. I WAS RIGHT- I KNOW WHAT HAPPEN BUT ORDINARY PEOPLE DONT KNOW-THEY CANT SEE TRHIOUGH THE FUTURE THEY DONT KNOW WHAT REPOUBLICAN LOOKS LIKE. WE MADE MISTAKE TWICE UNDER THE REPUBLICAN PARTY /THEN CONGRESS/SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE.
I TLEL YOU TIS AGIN FOR THE THIRD TIME- NO MORE REPUBLICAN AND DONT TRUST THEM- THEY DONT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE HER EIN AMERICA-THEY DONT CRAETE JOB ALL THEY WANT TAKE AND TAKE. FOR THIER OWN BENIFITS.UNION VOTE FOR BUSH THE MAJORITY WHAT THEY GOT?TODAY IS A PROMISE/AND LIES. I TOLD THEM DONT THEY WONT LISTEN. NOW YOU PEOPLE WONT LISTEN AGAIN?ITS YOUR COUNTRY CRUBLED AGAIN IF YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN.DUH
I PREDICT THIS YEAR IS 2007-AND HILLARY WAS BORN 1947 -LBRA-CUSP SCORPIO- OCT. 26 THERE FRE ITS HER YEAR 2007(BIRTHYEAR 1947)
PLUS LIBRA-PEACE AND BALANCE(LAW) AND HER CUSP SCORPIO- HARD WORKING AND CARING BORN LADY.
AGAIN COMMENT FROM A PHSYCHIC LADY'

Are you kidding? I am glad you are a Democrat.

I guess you spent too much time on the charts and not enough time researching facts. Clinton spent 8 years basically doing nothing...the economy was already improving BEFORE he took office, and the economy began to tank in the 3rd quarter of 2000...BEFORE Bush took office..check the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics if you don't believe me. We suffered numerous terrorist attacks from Al Qaeda when Bill Clinton was in office, the disaster in Somalia, genocide in Rwanda, Hussein committed around 200 violations of the cease-fire agreement, threw out UN weapons inspectors, and ripped-off the "Food for Oil" program, and he did what? Bomb Serbia. All the corporate scandals such as Enron and the inflated economic indicators that were based on false earnings reports and fraud in the energy and ITT industries took place during the CLINTON administration. Did you miss that in your crystal ball? Bottom line: George W. Bush did a great job leading this country thru some of the TOUGHEST times we have ever faced economically and in conflict. Now, you want me to believe that either of the TWO junior senators, Obama or H. Clinotn are going to do better?

Trish,

The reason "they" can't find nothing on Senator Boy Wonder is that he has done nothing.

Posted by: Terry | September 13, 2007 10:07 PM

Au contrere, Terry he's done plenty!

- He got a really sweet deal on a mansion.

- It was his name that got his wife a really sweet, high salary "job".

- He helped keep the tree stump named Todd Stroger in office.

Boy Wonder has been busy indeed.

"The only good thing about the polls you quote is that it is still early. The Democrats tend to decide pretty late who they want, for example, Kerry was at, what, 4% at this time in 2002/2003? So these national polls, at least for the Dems, don't mean much."

Posted by: nisleib

-Hillary is not just leading in the national polls, but also in most of the early primary states. The only state she doesn't have a comfortable lead of close to 10 percentage points or more in is Iowa, where she is leading by a small margin and gaining ground. It is also important to note that Hillary's lead over Obama is growing while her negative ratings are decreasing. There is not a single poll that shows Obama gaining on Hillary. Yes, it is still early out and I would not say anything is a gaurentee, but it looks like Hillary Clinton is well on her way to securing the nomination. Her campaign is extremly well run and executed (so we won't see a Howard Deam collapse) and any skeletons in her closet, even the non-existance ones, have been brought out...there is no scandal that is going to destroy her. Even this Hsu debacle includes Obama and he is quick to argue that in raising money, you make mistakes and you can't always gaurentee every money source is legitimate. The trends, both nationally and in the key states are all working in her favor and have been since the race started.

"The only good thing about the polls you quote is that it is still early. The Democrats tend to decide pretty late who they want, for example, Kerry was at, what, 4% at this time in 2002/2003? So these national polls, at least for the Dems, don't mean much."

Posted by: nisleib

-Hillary is not just leading in the national polls, but also in most of the early primary states. The only state she doesn't have a comfortable lead of close to 10 percentage points or more in is Iowa, where she is leading by a small margin and gaining ground. It is also important to note that Hillary's lead over Obama is growing while her negative ratings are decreasing. There is not a single poll that shows Obama gaining on Hillary. Yes, it is still early out and I would not say anything is a gaurentee, but it looks like Hillary Clinton is well on her way to securing the nomination. Her campaign is extremly well run and executed (so we won't see a Howard Deam collapse) and any skeletons in her closet, even the non-existance ones, have been brought out...there is no scandal that is going to destroy her. Even this Hsu debacle includes Obama and he is quick to argue that in raising money, you make mistakes and you can't always gaurentee every money source is legitimate. The trends, both nationally and in the key states are all working in her favor and have been since the race started.

to the anon who said they could find negatives about Obama's dealings with PACs etc.

Please give me the name of your favorite candidate and ask everyone one to come back and post something equally bad or worse.

We can do it for every candidate. I suspect that negative "dirt" is directly proportional to length of political service.

One man's dirt is another man's gold. So let's get all the dirt on all the candidates posted. Shall we pick one day a week to go after each candidate? Next week Thompson, Guiliani or Romney, the week after, Hillary, Obama or Edwards?

We can trade back and forth Republican/Democrat until we've proven that none of them deserve to be president.

Dan, TX:

Yes, friend, that is precisely the point. Obama has been sold since 2004 as somehow being better than anyone else in politics. As Trish said, she believes he is running for "altruistic reasons" – whatever that means. And why? Because his campaign is built on "hope." – again, whatever that means. But as Anonymous' post eloquently demonstrates, Obama is just another Chicago Democrat politician in bed with the Cook County Democratic Machine – one of the most corrupt bunches to ever populate American politics. I'm not saying Obama is worse than anyone else in the race. But he is not inherently better, either.

Rather than this, where's the story about Obama appearing on Fox News after he trumpeted that he was freezing them out?

This week's interview with Christ Wallace was the second time that vow was breached.

DOES THAT PARTY WHO SIGNS HERSELF 'PSYCHIC LADY' ACTUALLY MEAN 'PSYCHIATRIC'??

There's just some part of me that doesn't think it quite goes down the same way when Dems such as Barack are "sucking up" to their lobbyists as it does when GOP money cells intermingle. It would seem usually to be a reputable cause in a Democratic wheeling and dealing, occasionally infected by corruption. But the sleazy GOP lobby market is surely like a smoky poker game where loutish men can say whatever they want in any kind of obscene language.