1. Obama was for the holocaust before he was against it. Or some other such idiotic trash that is unbecoming a candidate such as John McCain .

2. Obama would gladly lose a war to win an election. Because he was against the surge. McCain was in favor of the surge. Of course, all of this ignores the simple fact that Obama was against the war from the get-go.

3. McCain says the surge helped bring about the Sunni Anbar Awakening, which has had as much to do - if not exponentially more - with calming the violence in Iraq as the surge itself. The problem is that the surge wasn’t even a glimmer in young Dubya’s eye when the Anbar Awakening began.

4. Obama is like Hitler. Of course, some locals have already said that.

5. Obama will say anything to gain the vote of members of the Israeli press. He mistakenly said the Senate Banking Committee was “his committee” when, in fact, it was that committee (of which he is not a member) that had passed a bill sponsored by Obama. IOW, it was his bill, not his committee.

Of course, because in the past 24 - 48 hours, McCain and his campaign have said several really stupid, offensive things, he did the only thing he could do.

He canceled his single press availability today so he wouldn’t have to answer any questions.

Be part of the Obama campaign by participating in meetings in the area to help contribute to this year’s platform. All you have to do is show up and discuss the issues that matter to you, and this information is then passed along to the Obama campaign. It’s called “Listening to America“.

There is a Listening to America meeting tonight at Batavia’s City Centre tonight at 7:30 pm.

There is one in Buffalo tomorrow (the 24th) at 6pm at 927 Grant St. in Buffalo (the Polish Cadets Hall off the Scajaquada).

John McCain has an video he’s released online that mocks the adoring coverage Obama gets in the press.

Ha ha.

It’s funny because the media have covered Obama just like…

…well, just like how they covered John McCain in 2000.

Haley Barbour on PBS in 2000:

Is the media soft on McCain?

HALEY BARBOUR: Oh, I think it’s probably more than that, Terry. I said last week that the news … the national news media were slobbering all over John McCain and that well known conservative correspondent Mary McGrory of the Washington Post said that absolutely it was true, that I was quite right, that the press has swooned for McCain. I’ve never seen anything like it. And I think what’s interesting for most viewers or people who are interested is that the press that is most pro-McCain are the most liberal press. The ones who are the biggest Clinton supporters like the New York Times and the Boston Globe have come out and said McCain is the anti-Clinton. The Washington Post actually ran an editorial that proclaimed that McCain was the conservative candidate in the race. It’s been a long time since Republicans looked to the Washington Post to tell them who was a conservative.

McCain is just jealous that the Straight Talk Express magic of 8 years ago is gone, and that his friends in the media have moved on to fresher meat.

John McCain in 2004:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

The elected head of state of sovereign Iraq said this to Der Spiegel this past weekend:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

and

“So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat,” Maliki told SPIEGEL. “But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.”

The Bush Administration first blundered by promoting the Spiegel article to its press distribution list rather than an internal distribution list, and then sometime on Sunday, Maliki issued a “clarification” of his remarks, which was puzzlingly released through the US Central Command.

Oh, and did I mention that Maliki’s “clarification” came after the White House called him to tell him to “clarify”?

From the New York Times:

Mr. Maliki’s interview prompted immediate concern from the Bush administration, which called to seek clarification from Mr. Maliki’s office, American officials said.

Scott M. Stanzel, a White House spokesman with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., said that embassy officials explained to the Iraqis how the interview in Der Spiegel was being interpreted, given that it came just a day after the two governments announced an agreement over American troops.

“The Iraqis were not aware and wanted to correct it,” he said.

So, the Iraqis trotted out a guy to say that Spiegel screwed up the translation.

Diplomats from the United States Embassy in Baghdad spoke to Mr. Maliki’s advisers on Saturday, said an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss what he called diplomatic communications. After that, the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, issued a statement casting doubt on the magazine’s rendering of the interview.

The statement, which was distributed to media organizations by the American military early on Sunday, said Mr. Maliki’s words had been “misunderstood and mistranslated,” but it failed to cite specifics.

“Unfortunately, Der Spiegel was not accurate,” Mr. Dabbagh said Sunday by telephone. “I have the recording of the voice of Mr. Maliki. We even listened to the translation.”

But the interpreter worked for Maliki - not Spiegel, and the Times got a hold of the tape, and offers this direct translation from its original Arabic:

“Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

And all of this comes during a campaign where McCain and Bush have steadfastly refused to consider a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq, lest it be perceived as failure. The Republicans have been trying to apply the “cut & run” language they used against Kerry against Obama, but 2004 is different from 2008. So different, in fact, that the White House itself has had to acknowledge that some sort of pullout is going to happen, but they prefer to call it a “time horizon” or somesuch.

By talking pullout, Bush and Maliki have effectively removed one of the big rationales behind McCain’s candidacy.

(EDITS: Links added, corrections made)

Here’s the new cover, courtesy of the Albany Project:

There is much back and forth over whether this image is funny, not funny, helpful, or harmful. The cartoonist basically threw every dimwitted right-wing smear against the Obamas into one image. My own opinion is that it’s pretty darn funny.

With that said, the debate over this cover is missing the real, important issue. That is, the New Yorker is still publishing magazines and has found a way to become talked-about among people who don’t drink at the Algonquin or summer in the Hamptons.

Republicans really can’t figure out whether Obama is an elitist country clubber or a Jihadist-in-waiting who American, just barely. But this, I think, is the winningest strategy out of all of them and I urge Republicans to adopt this:

Norquist dropped by The Times’ Washington bureau today and, as part of his negative critique of Obama’s liberal stances on economic issues and other matters, he termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee “John Kerry with a tan.”

It’s fun to watch the right try to figure out how best to define and pigeonhole Obama. They were so amped for Clinton, that they’ve been caught unawares.

They can’t decide whether Obama is the foreign outsider who rejects American values, or whether he’s the too-cool elitist at the country club.

They can’t decide if he’s too inner-city activist or too Park Avenue radical chic.

Thankfully, Karl Rove weighs in:

Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.

Note, of course, that with that very statement Rove outs himself as being that guy at the country club holding a martini and cigarette making snide comments. “Beautiful date” is unconfirmed.

Country club?

As most everyone knows by now, Barack Obama has decided to opt out of the public financing system, eschewing federal matching funds so that his overall fundraising is not capped, and he can effectively battle against what is likely to be a brutal Republican onslaught from McCain, the RNC, and various swiftboat-flavored 527 groups.

Some people are upset about this because they demand doctrinal rigidity in a candidate, rather than pragmatism. I think Bush has shown us that doctrinal rigidity in the face of changing factual reality can be quite counterproductive. Others are upset because Obama had pledged to work out something with the McCain campaign whereby both would opt into the public financing system. McCain is, notably, upset, and going on the attack on the issue. It won’t be very persuasive, however.

Why? Josh Marshall explains:

McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC’s rules, we’re still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He’s really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn’t — the Republican head of the FEC — said he’s not allowed to do that. He can’t opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain’s lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn’t really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC — a Republican — says McCain cannot do this on his own.

Why I detest cable news and Rush Limbaugh clones:

Barack Obama has hailed the recent Supreme Court decision, which held that detainees in Guantanamo Bay’s detention camp are entitled to habeas corpus. The McCain campaign said,

Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set . . . He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face,” McCain’s national security director Randy Scheunemann told reporters on a conference call.

Former CIA director James Woolsey, who is advising the McCain campaign, concurred, saying Obama has “an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism . . . and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Remember the blind Sheikh, Omar-Abdel Rahman? Connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, we arrested him and his co-conspirators and convicted them under the rule of law. He rots in jail for life. Why can’t we do the same to Qaeda suspects? How do we reconcile our rule of law, our constitution, our moral and legal obligation not to torture, with what we’ve done since 9/11? How does 9/11 justify violation of principles that date to 1215?

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists “within the constraints of our Constitution.” He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

“And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo,” Obama said. “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U. S. prisons, incapacitated.

“And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’

Obama is merely arguing that the United States needs to follow its own laws and treaty obligations when it comes to people imprisoned by the United States on American soil, (which the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base most certainly is). If we don’t do that, then what, precisely, are we fundamentally fighting for?

The McCain camp can accuse Obama of having a 9/10 mentality all it wants. They?

They have a pre-1215 mentality. A September 16, 1787 mentality. A July 3, 1776 mentality.

Posted By Christopher Smith

A year ago, Hillary Clinton was 30 points ahead of every other candidate in the Democratic Primary. She was outraising her opponents at a minimum of a 2-1 margin, she was the owner of a political pedigree and the biggest brand name in American politics. She had the support of the democratic establishment in just about every state and had nearly 20 years of political chits to cash in while on the campaign. So, how did she lose?

Obama built a grassroots network and fundamentally changed the way campaigning happened. Rather than focusing on large donors, top down organization and tightly controlled messaging, he hosted rallies where people gave between $10-25, but more importantly, turned over their email addresses and social network membership information. He eschewed the standard methodology of canvassing and voter organization and built a new model; one that is based on the power of social networks, viral marketing, and the voices of individuals. It’s a powerful change in American politics and one that I think we underestimate as we head into the general election. The new currency of a national campaign is contributory, social, and grassroots organization with millions of rapid responders working on behalf of the candidate.

It’s a new politics, a new mode of political discourse, and the fulfillment of the promise of direct democracy.

Yes, we can.

Posted by Christopher Smith

There have already been hundreds of columns written and thousands of words spoken about Hillary’s concession speech. However, I just wanted to say that I thought it was her finest moment. She struck a magnanimous tone and delivered the message she needed to in order to help unify the party behind the presumptive Democratic nominee. It was an unequivocal endorsement and a play towards being added to the ticket.

As with most candidates, I am always impressed by the authenticity and honesty given in concession speeches as it reveals the candidate he/she should have and could have been.

In the end, Hillary was simply a candidate with limited appeal. Her base of voters never really changed, she failed to bring new supporters to her fight, and her polarizing history kept people from giving her a second look. Her reliance on identity politics and partisan dogma failed to inspire a new generation of voters and Obama pounced on the opening. She also relied to heavy on traditional models of outreach…

For a pictorial view of what happened, here is a graphic from The Wall Street Journal that represents the reults of the “poll of polls” from Real Clear Politics. She tread water with a dedicated base while Obama chewed away at the fringes, brough new voters in, and stole many of her core constituencies.

John McCain. The guy I backed in 2000 is a wounded shadow of his former self. His speech was dull, plodding, uninspired, intellectually dishonest, and defensive. And whoever picked the green background should be fired. He talks of our progress in Iraq, where Sunnis are working with us to fight insurgency - Sunnis to whom we reached out in a diplomatic manner, realizing that there is something each side needs from the other. In the next breath he criticizes Obama for wanting to negotiate with mean dictators. McCain paints Obama with the big-spending, big-government program brush - a brush that’s 25 years out-of-date. The Republican Party is now the big-spending, big-government party. The Republican Party is now the party of government intrusion into public life, into mismanagement of the economy and energy policy, of turning the US into a torturing, aggressive, clumsy fool who spies on its own citizens. That’s not change we can believe in. McCain as a change agent? Co-opting Obama’s tag line as “A Leader We Can Believe In”? Nothing new, nothing original, and the whole notion of “change” isn’t exactly going to fire up the conservatives, who aren’t all that thrilled about McCain to begin with.

Hillary Clinton. The Senator from New York was feisty, defiant, conciliatory to the race Obama “has run” versus the race he has won. She gave out her web address and asked her supporters to tell her what to do next because she’s not making any decisions “tonight”. (The crowd at times chanted, “Denver, Denver!” and at one point I heard one voice cry, “don’t vote for Obama!”) It was Clinton’s opportunity to concede gracefully and acknowledge that Obama was over the top. She didn’t . It was Clinton’s opportunity to throw her support his way wholeheartedly to unify the party - an opportunity to do so to a live, nationwide audience. She didn’t. That’s a shame. Go to her site and tell her what you think? It begins, by default, “I’m with you, Hillary, and I’m proud of everything we are fighting for.” When you hit submit, it goes to her contributions page. What does she want? Not “respect” for the 18 million who voted for her. What she wants is help paying off her campaign debt. I thought her speech was an opportunity blown; it might have been the right speech for Hillary Clinton, but it wasn’t the right speech for the Democratic Party going into the general election. Ultimately, Clinton’s speech was all about her. She didn’t coalesce her supporters against McCain. She helped perpetuate the Hillary-as-victim myth. CNN pundits were getting angry emails about how this night was supposed to be “all about Hillary”. Jeffrey Toobin expressed disbelief at that sentiment, and chalked it up to “deranged narcissism”:

Barack Obama’s speech. Compared to McCain’s rhetorical bunt, Obama hit it out of the park. He extended a hand to Clinton and her supporters. But what I really loved - especially after the lackluster, wonky campaign Al Gore waged in 2000 and the milquetoast, defensive campaign John Kerry waged in 2004 - was that Obama got right in McCain’s face. He held the speech at the arena in St Paul where the Republicans will hold their nominating convention later this year. Right in his face. He praised McCain for his service to the country and his accomplishments, “even as he chooses to ignore [Obama’s]”. He went right at McCain as “embracing” Bush’s policies in Iraq and with domestic issues. While McCain criticized Obama for not visiting Iraq, Obama suggested McCain go and visit places in America that are facing tough times. It was patriotic. It outlined that, as far as Obama is concerned, the race won’t use religion as a “wedge”, and won’t demonize and turn opponents into the enemy. What a great speech. What a great night.

Bring it.

I thought this Kos Diarist’s account of a town hall meeting that Congressman (and Obama superdelegate) Robert Wexler held with his constituents in Clinton-friendly Palm Beach County.

When he’d finished, he took questions. The first lady immediately and concisely asked “how could you represent your constituents when you don’t endorse the candidate they prefer?” Many people cheered at this comment. Congressman Wexler answered that he tries to represent his constituents, but that he also exercises his own judgment, and that when he goes to Washington he shouldn’t leave his brain in Florida. Many people cheered at this.

The next lady said “I was ashamed to see your disgraceful performance on Saturday.” Lots of groans. “How could you represent your constituency, while voting to take away 50% of its votes?” He answered that no one had fought harder against Howard Dean when the DNC originally tried to take away Florida’s delegates, but they’d voted, and the primary campaign began in earnest, and the candidates signed a pledge, and it was unfair to bait and switch, by changing the rules halfway through. More applause.

There were other policy-related questions, until nearly the last questioner revisited Obama. “Could you please tell us more specifically why you chose Obama over Hillary?” Lots of “Yeahs!”

Congressman Wexler hit this one out of the park: “I support Barack Obama because he showed better judgment on the Iraq War, because he has remained more forcefully against it. I support him because of his stand on ethics reform, and commitment to engaging our enemies. I support him because he speaks truth to power. He spoke in front of a largely Cuban-American organization in Miami. Everyone has told this organization the same thing for 40 years. ‘We’re going to continue the embargo against Cuba, no monetary remittances there, no anything.’ Whether or not it works, that’s all any politician dares to say. Obama suggested to them we engage with Raul Castro, and take steps towards ending the embargo. Obama told a crowd in Detroit that we should increase fuel efficiency standards, and he told members of Martin Luther King’s church in Atlanta that we all share some of the blame for some of the race problems in America today.”

And it occurred to me, this is exactly what Congressman Wexler was doing, and did on Saturday. He was speaking forcefully and with conviction in the face of hostility.

Must be nice to be represented by a Congressman who isn’t afraid to speak with angry constituents.

This post tracked back to this one here, and it insinuates that I, as an Obama supporter, am somehow going against Obama’s call to hope, etc. because I have mocked some of Hillary’s supporters.

Barack Obama will have won this primary battle by the end of the week. He will have won it fair & square. He will have won through hard work and a novel grassroots campaign/funding strategy. He will have won despite the fact that Clinton had lined up institutional Democratic support for her campaign throughout the country. He will have won despite the fact that the Clinton camp played junior Karl Rove since about South Carolina in an effort first to derail him, and later to try and render him damaged goods so that, should he lose, they can say, “We told you so.” She was inevitable. Then came Iowa.

As an Obama supporter, Clinton’s behavior, and the behavior of many of her supporters, has grown more and more disturbing to me over the past few months. I think that what she’s doing is harmful to the party and the nominee the party selected over her.

Your post reads:

Ah…the audacity of hope…yes we can…a vision that all will share in the American Dream…along the way…it is okay to mock people…a true message of hope…we can bring people together and recognize that what unites us is greater than what divides us…yes we can.

Far be it from me to tell you what to write on your own site, but can we Fisk it? Yes, we can.

Setting aside the overuse of ellipses and the incomplete sentences, it’s intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. It’s not OK to mock the likes of this woman? On top of that, in the next line of your post you say, “but the things I have read on these internets from Obamatons pushing hate against her supporters is irony at its purest.”

Obamaton?!

Re-education camp? Obamenema?

Obamatabs?

Those sound pretty “mocking” and “hateful”. You think I’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. That’s fine, and you can post all day and all night about it. But don’t let’s play make-believe about how above the fray you are, and how shocked - SHOCKED! you are. Just keep on posting about how the party is a “sham” despite the fact that it had the guts to undergo something rather unpleasant this past weekend transparently on live TV. Despite the fact that it’s winning federal-level elections in traditionally safe Republican strongholds.

When I insinuated that the Ron Paul people were cultists, they merely confirmed the point by spamming my site with hundreds of insane rants. I use my site to support my candidate, as I have done throughout the existence of this site. Furthermore, when my candidate’s opponent and her supporters behave like imbeciles, I’m going to post about it if I feel like it, regardless of your delicate sensibilities. Because that, too, is something I’ve done since ‘03.

Don’t get all self-righteous about mockery and hatred when you spread it around yourself.

When Hillary Clinton began her quest for the Presidency, she was despised by a good half of the electorate-at-large.

Now? In late May 2008? She’s despised by a good half of the Democratic Party, too. Not because she’s a woman. Not because she’s a Clinton. Not because she’s from New York. Not because she’s opinionated and strong.

She’s despised because she’s a sore loser, and she’s playing the feminist victim card in a way that cheapens both words.

Any suggestion that her loss in the primaries has to do with sexism or unfair media treatment is patently false, and truly pathetic. If that’s the message she wants to send to her supporters, so be it. She lost fair and square partly because of the mismanagement of her own campaign. I hope all of this nonsense is somehow worth it for her.

Say what you want about Olbermann, but he’s one of the very, very few cable commentators who doesn’t scream at you, doesn’t rely on flash and graphics, and otherwise isn’t a caricature of himself. Good for him for what he’s doing - being intelligent and speaking to you like a grownup. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not.

And the best part of this commentary comes at around the 8 minute mark, when he lists of the myriad things we have “forgiven” Clinton over the course of the primary, in spite of her easy morphs into victim mode.

Like the NY Lottery - hey, you never know.

This has to be one of the dumbest things said on the campaign trail this year. The fact that it was said by the candidate who’s got the experience - the one who’s been fully vetted - the one who’s ready to lead on day one, makes it all the stupider.

Her apology:

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,” the former first lady said.

“Sorry if it was offensive” does-not-equal “sorry I said something offensive”.

Of all the things in the whole world she could have brought up as an excuse for staying in a race she’s already lost, arguing that RFK wasn’t shot and killed until June is probably the last one on the list. It is offensive not only because dredging up RFK’s assassination is in poor taste this week, with news of Teddy Kennedy’s illness. It is offensive because bringing up the specter of assassination is beyond the pale - well beyond anything normal people would discuss as part of a primary campaign. It’s like taking being at a romantic dinner at Olivers, pulling your pants down, hopping up on the table, squatting, and taking a shit right there in the middle of the table.

Seriously, Mrs. Clinton, the race is over for you. Drop out now while you still have a political career.

UPDATE: Even the argument itself is fallacious, regardless of its offensiveness. In 1992, the New York Times noted that, by March 20th, Paul Tsongas was running out of money and pulled out of the race. He said,

the alternative was to play the role of spoiler.” ‘That Is Not Worthy’…”That is not what I’m about,” he continued. “That is not worthy. I did not survive my ordeals in order to be the agent of the re-election of George Bush.”

In the meantime, the (Bill) Clinton campaign argued that the mathematics made him the inevitable nominee:

Mr. Clinton is already close to the halfway mark in the number of delegates needed to win the nomination and has a 7-to-1 edge over Mr. Brown, who is running a maverick, anti-establishment campaign. Many Democrats said that barring an unexpected collapse by Mr. Clinton’s campaign, it is difficult to see how Mr. Brown can overtake the Governor.

“It certainly brings it much closer to a conclusion,” said Ronald H. Brown, the Democratic national chairman. “You could argue that it’s theoretically possible for Jerry Brown to mount a come-from-behind challenge, but the math and the reality of Bill Clinton’s momentum certainly work against him.”

And note that in 1992, the New Hampshire primary took place during the second half of February - not in January.

As Marc Ambinder argues,

For those who contend that Clinton was referring to competitive contests or example, why didn’t she bring up Ted Kennedy in 1980? Or Gary Hart in 1984? I think she was pointing to primary races where the eventual nominee was unknown at this point in the cycle…. But 1984 would apply more, her husband was the de-facto nominee at this point, and the compressed calender really renders such comparisons null and void.

Even if her point is legitimate, surely she is aware of the sensitivity of the subject.

Obama has done exactly the right thing over the last week or so - pretend Clinton doesn’t exist. Yes, his campaign issued a statement calling what Clinton said, “unfortunate” and said it “has no place in this campaign.” Other than that, Obama has been looking more presidential than either McCain or Clinton this past week, easily morphing from defense to offense whenever McCain attacks him, and by mounting a general election campaign.

Posted by Christopher Smith

Sometimes, it takes Al-Jazeera to help us see our country as it really is. This is a phenomenal piece about race in America and the forces that Barack Obama will face in the general election. It really doesn’t have anything to do with Hillary or some ginned up story of her or her husband as race-baiters. It’s about the deep scars this nation bears from centuries of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow.

What do you make of it?