These last few days have kind of proven my whole initial gut-level reactions about Obama.

He's running as a fresh face, not just as 'not a seasoned politician', but also in some ways as the anti-politician, as someone who's honest and more real than the competition. But then, he, his campaign, his supporters are speaking and behaving in such absolutely conventional ways that he's contradicting himself, and that promise is therefore hollow. Some examples:

A. Saying one thing in public and another in private - not just NAFTA, but about pulling out of Iraq, Rev. Wright and a zillion other issues.

B. Trying to keep dark secrets under wraps until they absolutely need to come out - Wright, Rezko (he's using the Spitzer style as opposed to the Paterson style - I would’ve expected a really honest, genuine Obama to disarm his opponents with blatant honesty far ahead of time)

C. Jumping on every mistake the other candidate makes and playing various identity cards (by no means are these cards new; it was just not about racism/sexism earlier, but human identities take multiple forms) - blaming Ferraro for 'divisiveness' and implicit racism when he has said exactly the same thing in his Senate website (http://obama.senate.gov/news/­050626-when_it_comes_to_race_o­bama_ma/ :"If he were white...he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?") and also when his own supporters, like John Kerry, reiterate that point (http://www.talkleft.com/story­/2008/3/20/135834/603)

D. Pimping 'change' as the be-all and end-all of human existence - (which is a line that EVERY politician since George Washington has used - SlateV had a great video on this a month or so ago)

E. Playing the numbers game over what is principled - by going against the decisions of the DNC, the Michigan democrats, the Clinton campaign's consensus, and being the only one standing against the Michigan do-over, he is obviously doing what is right for himself than what is right for the people, for the party and for this country's democratic ideals

e. etc. etc.

This, to be correct, is astute politics - well played, indeed. But please don't go on about how this is NOT politics or that this is 'the politics of hope and change'.

Gee... Barack Obama is a politician. Who knew?

Obama 08!

Given the self regard that soaks just about every syllable of your post, I'm willing to bet that you often see "Your Own Intuition- Vindicated!" where it is not. No?

Nice, astute, well supported argument.

yeah well, whatever. why don't you actually argue the logic with Truthfulness and Justice, instead of trying to attack my self-regard?

"Playing the numbers game over what is principled - by going against the decisions of the DNC ..."

OK, what decision of the DNC has Barack Obama gone against?

Obama 08!

There is nothing that you have faulted Obama's campaign on that your own candidate has not done in spades. And spades. And spades.

Take today for example, McCain has actually fired a staffer for distributing the Wright videos even as Clinton campaign official Lanny Davis has tried yet again to resurect the issue in the MSM.

Sure, Obama's campaign is not perfect but Clinton's looks nothing short of morally bankrupt. Right this minute, they are literally making the "GOP Attack Machine" look classy by comparison.

In a Democratic primary, I'd say that's a bigger problem than Obama participating in *gasp* a presidential campaign!

The Michigan revote, for one. That decision required the sign-off of four entities - the Michigan democrats, the DNC, and the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Check, check, check, and stall.

(CNN: "A top Michigan Democrat expressed frustration Wednesday with Obama for not embracing the state's proposal. "The Obama people are blocking it in the Legislature," said the Democratic source, who has not backed either candidate.")

Yes, but she never promised the sun and the moon and truth and justice and world peace, did she? She laid out clear policies and promised full efforts, and hard work ("I will wake up every morning and slog my *** out", or something to that effect)

Obama came in promising 'change' and asking us to 'hope' and to transform and elevate the world. Change starts at home, or in one's own campaign. If his campaign is itself so full of half-truths and split tongues, how will it help cleanse the world?

Classic case of false advertising. If this was Coca-Cola, he'd've been sued for false promises and under-delivery. Unfortunately I can't ask for my money back from a politician!

An unratified decision is not a decision. It is a proposal. Barack Obama is entirely within his rights to negotiate over the DNC's proposal. Obama has respected all DNC decisions, contrary to your assertion.

Obama 08!

See, that's the thing. Obama never promised the exagerated hyperboles that you cite. He promised to run a different kind of campaign and the actions of the Hillary! camapign highlight those differences daily.

Incidently, I would say that, increasingly, Clinton's self designation as a "Democrat" is the worst case of false lebeling in this race.

Seriously, Truth, stop the self-delusion. HOW is his campaign being ANY 'different'?????

WHICH of the six-seven specific examples I cited earlier, do you dispute?

Lanny Davis is not a Clinton campaign official. Get your *facts* straight.

And I'm glad that people are finally acknowledging (and, humorously, excusing) what lots of other people have been saying all along--Obama is a politician. He's associated with unsavory people, such as Wright, to form alliances within communities in order to do good. He has taken a questionable campaign donation or two (all of which he may or may not have given back). He's capable of error and blunder, that he's potentially "divisive," that he's capable of negative campaigning, that he's self-interested, that he actually wants to win more than anything else. That he's a politician! And...maybe he's not even that different than HRC? Could it be? Could you even fathom that maybe you might be self-interestedly inflating everything she's done to make it more invidious than it is, and also self-interestingly deflating what he's done to make it less invidious than it is? And that, yeah, if you put them both side-by-side and look at what they're BOTH guilty of, they're really not that different.

Except, then you might have to face the fact that perhaps you've been bamboozled when you bought (hook, line, and sinker), his "new politics" argument. You might have to acknowledge that it's just a very strongly crafted and powerfully delivered buffer to get you to like him, to see him in a more positive light than you might otherwise, and to get you to automatically forgive him for any of his sins (like the sin of hypocrisy). Then you might have to acknowledge that it is just an advertisement strategy...a gloss...a (very persuasive) diversionary tactic to deflect attention from other aspects of his campaign (like his policy platform) that make him look weaker than her. Yes! He's a politician, and as such, he might be LYING to us (or you know...spinning the truth).

And if he is just puffing us full of hot air, and it turns out that things really don't change that much come January (or if they get worse due to his lax stance on domestic policy and his very-ambitious foreign policy stances), it's very important that we can work together to find a way to blame Clinton for that.

The whole thing reminds me of the Simpson's episode, where Homer runs for Sanitation Commissioner.

There was a time not too long ago when Barack Obama was being criticized for being too naive as a campaigner. He was mocked as being Barack Obambi.

Now that Obama has shown that he can and will play the political game, he is criticized for, well, not being Barack Obambi.

Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. But surely damned will he be.

Obama 08!

Umm Clinton *is* the Democrat here. Your statements get sillier and sillier as we go along. You could do yourself a world of service if you THINK before you speak. Do you know what a Democrat is and what the Democrats stand for? Why would you call her label "false?"

Or is it because she's older and white? Could you be developing racist tendencies? How noble.