This article ought to be comparing apples to apples. Not apples to nothing.

Maybe the things Obama says are not sufficiently pugnacious to satisfy Mr. Dickerson's view of "truth, but that doesn't mean he's pandering or playing hide the ball.

Unlike Clinton when she''s in campaign-speak mode, Obama would never be so condescending (or deluded) to try to sell voters on the nutty idea that it's the President's job to enter the Oval Office armed with numerous 3 ring binders containing one person's "solutions" to all of America's problems.

Clinton doesn't really believe that either, of course. Yet Dickerson fails to point out that her entire campaign strategy (she's "prepared" to lead on day 1) hinges on the illusion that as President she will, starting on day 1, open Volume I of her massive set of 3 ring binders and implement law after law until she gets through to the end of Volume MXV, when she'll be able to declare that she has produced change. (I hear she is very organized.)

Obama believes it's the job of government to listen to what the people are saying and to work together to find solutions that can do the most good while hurting the fewest people. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. And it would be a big change to have a President who actually understood that.

Clinton is also "listens," in the sense that she determines on one day which way the wind is blowing in the electorate, and the very next day is "ready" with some or another 80 point plan that appears to be a paint by numbers promise to fix the problem. (Talk about raising false hopes.)

Clinton's motive is purely tactical -- she wants to win the nomination. With the assistance of a press that she seems to have bullied into not questioning her motives, the Clinton strategy may well work. But let's face it, it's fundamentally dishonest for stumping politicians to claim, at each different stop, that they will implement certain plans as President just because it pleases the audience.

The press was moved by Obama's victory in Iowa. So moved that for a moment, a good number of you actually believed in democracy again too.

But then came NH. Hillary eked out a 2% victory in her "firewall" state, no doubt in large part because of the last minute mass mailing of a flyer aimed at scaring NH women into believing that Obama might not support their reproductive rights, and suddenly the members of the press are all ashamed that for that shining moment, they had let go of cynicism and felt inspired by the message of hope.

There's nothing wrong with feeling inspired and moved. It's powerful. It resulted in a lot of you writing truly beautiful columns for a couple of days. They sure were a lot more fun to read than the ugly and cynical drivel you've all gone back to writing, as though you now understand "the truth."

Oh, I beg to differ. There is something wrong with feeling moved and inspired about a candidate instead of an outline for action, or a particular approach to policy, or even a single program. The thing is called a cult of personality, and anyone who looks at Obama's candidacy sees the signs of it everywhere. Believers can tell themselves they support Candidate X for so many different reasons, but the truth is they are just sucked (or suckered, depending on your level of cynicism) into the rhetorical vortex. The facts are that America will need to do both: the US needs to grow its economy hugely in the next 30 years but also implement enormous and new revenue raising methods in order to really address its national (health care, immigration, leftover debt from the wars, over-reliance on petroleum) and the global problems (climate change, terrorism) we face. These challenges make the Cold War and the Race to the Moon look like weekend hobbies; and somebody with "charisma" instead of a damned courageous plan is nearly the very last thing we need. (Unless the Republicans can actually find more malevolent narcissistic fascists underneath some rock somewhere, W and Cheney qualify as the very last thing.)

It's just pretty much the same thing as Hillary. They have to invent differences to make it look like you're getting a policy choice.

As for the tough vote or stand, they're both equally evasive. I can only think of a few politicians who've really been willing to make a tough vote.. First and foremost is McCain... and as a result his party hates him. Then there's GWB, who'll stick to an unpopular decision long after everyone knows that he's totally wrong. Then there's Biden, Specter, and a few others.

Anyway, my point is that the choice boils down to the person. Do you want a constitutional law scholar or an advocate for children's rights? Do you want someone who's overcome racial barriers or one who's broken down gender based ones? Do you want someone who wins through inspiration, or someone who wins through triangulation and political calculation.

In DC and against the GOP, I'll take political calculation.

Then you should (and do :-) ) support Hillary. I disagree. I think that you're better off reaching out and building a working majority.

A fair case can be made either way.

Please...check our the video on youtube!

Mr. Barack Obama will not even acknowledge the AMERICAN pin or stand correctly with hand over heart and acknowledge the American flag...don't be fooled by the wolf in sheep's clothing!

Check it out under Barack Obama and the Pledge of Allegiance!

Let me know...if you have you changed your mind?

"Check it out under Barack Obama and the Pledge of Allegiance!"

I read on the Internet that Kissinger has JFK's brain in a jar on his bookshelf.

to claim you can make a "fair case" you have to articulate that case. Go read the GOP.GOV site and tell me which policies the GOP will be willing to "reach out on"?

Which of the below are likely to break ranks? Which states have constituencies that will tolerate that? Alabama? Idaho? Arkansas? Indiana? Kansas? Kentucky? Nebraska? Mississippi? Texas? Utah? Virginia? West Virginia? Wyoming?

Sure the seats of Coleman, Smith, Barasso, Allard, Craig, Hagel, Domenici and Warner are "in play" but realistically you can only count on picking up at most 5 of those seats. That gives you 56. So you need 4 more to vote with you to even break cloture.

The ONLY way you will do that is based on knowing how to push the levers on Murkowski, Specter, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, and maybe Smith (if he keeps his office). That means moving 4 of 6 every time you want a moderate bill passed.

Given what happened to Lincoln Chafee - the GOP ran a conservative against their own incumbent because he broke ranks - you aren't going to be able to do this consistently.

So unless you can explain to me who in the below list is going to "cross the aisle" simply because of Obama's aura, you are just making itup.

Shelby (R), Sessions (R)
Stevens (R), Murkowski (R)
McCain (R), Kyl (R)
Allard (R), Martinez (R)
Chambliss (R), Isakson (R) Craig (R), Crapo (R)

Lugar (R),
Grassley (R),
Brownback (R), Roberts (R)
McConnell (R), Bunning (R)
Vitter (R)Snowe (R), Collins (R)Coleman (R), Cochran (R), Wicker (R) Bond (R),

Hagel (R), Ensign (R)
Gregg (R), Sununu (R)
Domenici (R), Dole (R), Burr (R)
Voinovich (R), Inhofe (R), Coburn (R)
Smith (R)

Specter (R), Graham (R), DeMint (R)
Thune (R)
Alexander (R), Corker (R)
Hutchison (R), Cornyn (R)
Hatch (R), Bennett (R)
Warner (R),
Enzi (R), Barrasso (R)

o well lets look at what obama is hiding london times reported that REZO if you dont remember gave obama money for his campain now REZO had taken a 305 millian daller ilegal payment from one corrupt IRAGI buisnessman named AUCHI FINTRADE a company in panama made loans to OBAMA campaign in 2005 sitting on the board of directors of the company is one MRS AUCHI the wife this buisnessman NOW ABC NEWSsourcesare beginning to follow AUCHI trail and it has been discovered that he was linked with no outher than our beloved SADAM HUSSIEN conect the dots now ask what BAROCK HEISAN OBAMA IS HIDING lets ask abc news these questions why is it not public news

sorry should be 3.5 million daller

And so it begins. For those who think that Obama is not as divisive HRC, one reading of the above knuckle-dragging post shows where this is going to go.

Anyone who thinks that Obama isn't divisive just hasn't spent enough time around folks like JRTexas.

I think that you've outlined a pretty clear case for how it can be done. Just pick up five seats and play ball with five or six Republicans. Once you have a 60 vote block, a rather large portion of the rest will jump on the bandwagon or be left without a voice altogether.

You disagree, favoring a candidate who will try to ram through legislation by force and political gamesmanship. Great!

However, this levers of power argument doesn't wash. I've never seen a lever sticking out of Arlen Specter. POTUS is the executive branch, not some mid-level bureaucrat.

It's great to support a candidate, just stay away from their koolaid.

The approach I outlined is the quintessence of "triangulation" - because the way you split off the 5 moderates like Snowe - is that you give them some quid-pro-quo that they can take back to their states. Then they vote to end cloture, but vote AGAINST the bill when it comes to the floor vote.

The idea that the "large portion will jump on the bandwagon" is simply naive - you haven't explained at all how folks like DeMint, Inhof, Sunnunu etc. have any motivation whatsoever to "jump on board". And your failure to do so underscores a naivite about why the partisan impasse exists in the first place.

It is precisely that naivite that is the weakness Obama has. You will only get the moderates to break cloture if you GIVE them something in return. That means you have to be very cognizant of the political gamesmanship of what you give, to whom and when. Failure to do so will alienate members of your own block such as yahoos like Lieberman and will waste political capital on less important efforts.

You have yet to articulate a case for why any GOPer would follow Obama except for the power of Kumbayah - and that just doesn't work in DC.

THAT'S what you chose to correct?? Wow, just WOW!

When exactly has she done this?

Hillary's predominant skills and accomplishments are all related to advocacy for children's rights. Her health care plan failed in the 90's precisely because she wasn't good at reaching across party lines and political maneuvering..

She's better now, but she isn't the legislative genius you seem to want to make her out to be.