Obama's policies and priorities would not be favorable to a huge swath of us in the fourth of the country's population in the Midwest -- with even more when it takes in (on some maps) western Pennsylvania, western New York, etc.

How do we know?  Because he doesn't really know us.  And historically, those who don't know us keep foisting on us policies that look good on paper on the coasts but don't work for the heartland . . . and often do more damage.

We need more like Boehlert and Bob Somerby.  And thank you, BTD, for shining a light on the biased media coverage.

And an Obama supporter has used that to refute the argument being made here by BTD.

Problem is.  The particular consistency being advocated for here is not foolish.

Indeed the party divides without it.

Score another point for BTD here.

And remember.  This goes back to Obama saying that while it wasn't all Clinton's fault all those attacks in the 90s, they still existed, and that was why she would not be able to unite the country the way he can.

Obama never said those attacks were wrong, and indeed he wants to appeal to Republicans who refuse to admit that those attacks were wrong.

For fun string together certain words and see how many of our friendly blogs show up:  Hillary or Clinton's with the following:   stoop, Provoke, Secretive, Hypocrisy, Liar, will do anything.  Use your imagination.  

People don't trust politics. They (the little people) think of you (the person who erroneously found Obama's comments to be offensive) as liars. by lying (purposely finding offense) like this about what Obama actually said and meant, you  (who fails to understand the true intent of Obama's words) only confirm his (the One who tells the truth) point. I certainly lost a little respect for some of the bloggers (because you refuse to look through my partisan colored set of glasses) misusing what is a comment that we all readily agree is true- that Americans have voted their social views over their economic interests because they (those religious people) didn't think they (those gun toters) could trust us (Obama, and the rest of us high knowledge people.)

The double standard to benefit their preferred candidate, including the ridiculous posture that criticizing Obama's statements, actions and record  all of a sudden constitute some kind of unfair dirty politicking -- all generating from the Bad Monster Lady, whether the criticism actually came from her or not -- has become almost too moronic to address ... unless anyone cares about what's going to happen in the GE and afterwards.

If a David Schuster had said Obama was pimping Michelle by putting her out on the campaign trail, would "progressive" voices be circling their wagons around Schuster and his defenders, and vilifying Obama because Schuster was punished?

How about the hue and cry over Randi Rhodes' suspension for her gratuitous "f-cking wh0re" slam? Had it been a race=based slur aimed at Obama, would she be hailed as a free-speech martyr just doing comedy? Would this be used as an excuse to blame Obama because Rhodes esd called out on it?

And what about brushing past Sen. Clinton's own words and deeds in her own record of service, but holding her responsible for official Clinton admin policies -- that she had no vote in -- AND using her as an excuse to rehash the totally irrelevent Lewinsky poli-porn?

Boiling it down to the two remaining candidates for the Dem ticket, HRC is no more "ambitious" for still being in it and fighting s any candidate would than BO is "uppity" for doing so.

I want their strengths and weaknesses fairly judged and any parties that thwart that to be taken to task transparently and based on actual events -- not smeared on attributes (like the Clintons themselves or their supporters are suddenly racists.)

My number one issue is and has always been global human rights. It was at the core of the unconstitutional rush to war. It's been at the center of resisting the lawlessness of the Bush admin online and off. It's why I changed my reg after Dem voters mostly in black districts were disenfranchised in the '04 election and every single Dem didn't show up to protest.

It's expressed in this primary and election by a narrow focus on FRANCHISE. We're all entitled to rule of law and a restoration of full constitutional rights.

Any progressive voices that aren't neutrally for THAT first -- and not saddling us with a sub-standard candidate who can't tolerate routine questions about his tangible record and words -- are chewing off their own limbs and writing off their main reason to exist at all.

I have a male friend who really thinks Hillary is the better choice but he voted for Obama because he basically wanted to spare her the pain of being bashed daily in the press (yes, ridiculous, I know, she has clearly proven she is tough enough to take it). I think it is really uncomfortable to watch for most fair minded people, and so rather than fight to change the press (which is nearly impossible to do), he just voted for the other candidate so "Hillary" (but really he) would not have to suffer through months or years more of the Hillary bashing. And then once they have chosen the other side, they start to buy into the idea that maybe if so many in the press hate her, they have it right after all...

David Saunders, a Democratic strategist and rural advocate who advised John Edwards presidential campaign but is now neutral, said he believed Mr. Obama's comments would offend rural voters. "It could mean he's rendered himself unelectable," Mr. Saunders said. "This is a perfect example of why Democrats lose elections."

tomorrow's NY Times

It could mean he's rendered himself unelectable," Mr. Saunders said. "This is a perfect example of why Democrats lose elections."

She talks at the end as if the only way one might be a member of the elite is if you're a multimillionaire.

Nothing could be more absurd. The worst elitists of all, the worst snobs of all, are almost always members of the "intellectual" class who routinely sneer at the rubes across the country who lack their "sophistication".

These snobs rarely are truly rich themselves, though  they are typically very, very comfortable.

And you know one place where you can find those kind of utterly patronizing twits in overpowering abundance?

. . . Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence. . . .

But another Democratic strategist, who assessed the moment candidly on the condition of anonymity, said: "Ultimately, the case that McCain and Clinton will try to make that Obama is an elitist or out of touch has to be credible to the voter, and I don't believe it is. My sense is more people believe Obama, rather than McCain or Clinton, understand their lives and the challenges they face on a daily basis."

WaPo

Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama

gaining a few days of lurid publicity

she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination

she desperately wants the nomination