First of all, let me tip my hat to McCain. The man does have class. Bush NEVER would have done anything like that -- he would have disclaimed responsibility. McCain, of course, knows that better than anyone.

But I also bow to Obama for keeping the whole thing at a low profile, though I'm not surprised. The reason Obama has a decent shot at becoming our first black president is because he doesn't try to pose as a victim, something Hillary Clinton could learn to her benefit. He understands that playing the victim is a double-edged sword. It gains you sympathy from those similar to yourself, and from those who dislike seeing others abused. But it also is seen as an attempt to make people who are NOT similar to yourself feel guilty, and it always backfires more than it works. Sad, perhaps, but it's the way things work, and Obama has dodged the temptation to cry "poor me" at every turn.

So, what was Obama doing when he complained that the Clinton camp was spreading around that photo of him?

Obama said in tonights debate that he believes Hillary Clinton knows nothing about the photo and that's that. The photo is a non-issue.

and his supporters to spread that clear UNTRUTH for three-four days. But now, suddenly, TO LOOK GOOD on the record in a widely televised debate... NOW he says he believes she had nothing to do with it? And you naive fools actually believe him? Amazing stuff, such naivete, such gulliblity. God save you all come Nov. 4th, if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination by August. It's a set-up; don't you people realize anything? Do you actually believe he walks on water? Snort!

But you see, ONLY good things are allowed to be written or said about HIM and only negatives are permitted to be written or said about HER. Why else would the inane Top Post above have gotten a Checkmark? Slate's bias towards BO is so blatant as to render this place totally without any credence. They might as well rename it ObamaFray.

God save you all come Nov. 4th, if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination by August.

That sentiment, in a nutshell, is why Clinton is currently losing this race. She thought the nomination was hers for the taking. Between not preparing for a fight past Super Tuesday and the general dislike people have of being taken for granted, she is now on the ropes.

SpeakerNancy,

Obama won't "steal" the nomination: if he wins, he will win because he got more votes than his opponents. How is that a "set-up?"

Gullibility and naivete are also to blame for those who think that the ONLY reason Hillary trails in the popular vote, pledged delegate count, and overall delegate count is because the press refuses to write anything negative about him and only writes negative things about her. This is not borne out by the facts. Do you think Hillary could walk on water if only the press would claim that she could? Snort!

Indeed, McCain, despite his horrid policy flip-flops, has a certain personal nobility. It is also true that Obama has handled everything that has come up during the last few weeks with amazing cool and a rare acumen for an American politician.

But who cares about these traits in the end?

I have just studied more than a dozen polls comparing Obama & Clinton to McCain, or comparing Obama to Clinton. While personal integrity, electability, and issues, play a small role in voters' impressions -- and gender and race have an impact too -- this entire election is really about one thing according to every one of these surveys.

Age.

Not Obama's age, or McCain's age, or Clinton's respective ages -- but the ages of the voters themselves. Voters older than 65 see the world through a reverse periscope than do voters under 40. And this year, the voters in between (40-64) are leaning toward the younger generation. This is true among democrats, independents, republicans, ethnic groups, men, and women! It's all about age! Age is the rage!

My guess is that Obama figured this out during Super Tuesday when he came up with the "past vs. future" line in his post-victory speech. Right after that he was unstoppable (11 in a row and counting) because he is winning the young folks-- by that I mean the "under-64 set." Pretty good coalition.

I'm so sick of people belittling HRC's campaign because she took for granted the nomination last year. The polls overwhelmingly suggested this; it wasn't a move out of hubris. She campaigned in Iowa --even though she knew she couldn't win it--because she knew a big loss would make her look bad. That was a good call. But even that small loss gave the media an opening to sell some papers. The media was happy painting Obama as a dreamer when he was behind, but when he won Iowa, they found a way to make a blowout into a horse race.

So now he accepts that the Clinton knows nothing about the photo. Well how gracious of him after his campaign spending most of the last two days put out press releases and going on TV to accuse her of deliberating putting it out there.

Perhaps he and his campaign should have checked the facts first before mouthing off. That might be a good trait in a president. Is 8 years of a president who acts first and check the facts later not enough?

if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination if he actually manages to steal the Dem. nomination.

Let me guess, you believe Hillary has somehow earned the presidency? Because her name is Clinton? No, because she is winning the majority of the peoples' support? No, because she is winning the delegates? No no no no.

<b>"Perhaps he and his campaign should have checked the facts"</b><br><br>­

Right, your asking Obama to be gracious and less political. Now that would be akin to whom? Not his competitor Mrs.Clinton. I continue to be blown away by the inherent negativity coming from people supporting Clinton and opposing Obama. The biggest problem we have here in America is that we don't realize the power of the population. Year after year, we are allowing the powers within the parties to lead us. This time around, the people are more energized than ever. Don't kill that because you somehow believe Hillary Clinton is owed the White House. Two liberal candidates with so much similarities its difficult to tell them apart. Think positive. The ideas are good, the people are awake, and the candidate is more popular than anything we've seen in decades. The power is in numbers, not with Washington insiders.

Don't put words in my mouth MichaelRJ. I never said anywhere Hillary Clinton was owed the White House. I don't believe that for a minute.

And as for negativity being onesided, please live in the real world here. Some of the worst offenders in the negativity stakes on the Fray have come from Obama supporters, some of whom seem to hate Hillary with a passion that borders on the religious. I see more Obama supporters here saying they will not support Hillary if she wins than the other way around.

Let me make it clear. I would prefer Hillary to be the candidate. I will support Obama when, as is looking likely, he wins the nomination. But he's going to have work along harder than spouting meaningless mantras ("Yes we can" - oh please!) to get to the White House and to get my respect.

And please can we stop with this Washington insiders rubbish. Nobody gets elected to the US Senate without being part of the establishment. Nobody gets to be a key speaker at the Democratic Party convention without being part of the establishment. The idea that Obama is a complete outsider with no ties to anybody in Washington is just one more crazy piece of spin that now seems to be taken as a fact. If you want a real outsider in the White House you vote for Nader.

Finally with regard to the power of the population I do believe in it. Its what gave George W. Bush four more years in 2004.

And actually one only has to see the way the Republicans feel disillusioned with George W. Bush to have an example of what happens when you believe your candidate is the greatest thing on earth only to find out later that he's actually just an ordinary human being. One hopes that if Obama wins the presidency the Democrats aren't in the same place in 2012.

Thank you for your astute analysis. It was not a move out of hubris at all, though perhaps she might have toned down the "inevitability" factor. My staff and I do see that factor as a major tactical error. Frankly, this nomination **should** have been Senator Clinton's, or perhaps Sen. Biden's or former Sen. Edwards. Experience and background and solid, realistic knowledge and grounding DO count for something, still, after all -- even though our Internet-addicted, trend-setting & following, "change"-worshipping Gen X. friends & voters are so clearly willing to believe otherwise. The media has played a very critical role in this election, a role which, when bias and favoritism are so clearly permitted (as they have been these past two Presidential elections) ought to be examined more clearly. They have far exceeded their appropriate role as being REPORTERS of the news, not makers of it, nor influencers of it. "Thank you for your support."

The Speaker

Clinton's campaign distributed that photo is shameful. Sen. Obama should have stifled that rumor, so clearly made public by his campaign staff, immediately. When we saw while watching the Charlie Rose program from London on PBS-TV last night, that even an Oxford University professor had swallowed that lie, and Charlie Rose either did not catch it or did NOT correct it, that sinking feeling rose into our throats. Sen. Obama's campaign has not been run in an ethically admirable fashion, for the most part -- and most distressing about that, is his refusal and that of his supporters & campaign to admit that fact, or perception, whichever it may be. To watch them continually try to "claim the high ground" while so clearly, pulling out all the old Dirty Tricks, is well, dismaying. Thank you for your support.

The Speaker