Sounds to me like Obama lied. Jake Tapper says it isn't the first time. Here's about 70 other examples with links to sources

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?cat=21

1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

Obama is an empty suit, a fad for teenyboppers and easily impressed and overly emotional college kids. The longer a fad like BO hangs around, the more it bores.

Democrats better hope Shapiro is right and it proves impossible for BO to end this race before it becomes painfully obvious to everyone that the vacuous BO and the "God Damn America" preacher he rode in on are sure losers in a general election.

Fifty-six percent of NC Hillary Clinton supporters said they will not vote for BO in a general election. Twenty-eight percent at large said the same. BO can't win.

Dean and the party establishment should have run Obama out of the race months ago, forseeing that a weak candidate can easily become competitive if he can draw all of the African-American support and win some caucuses in red states Democrats can never win. Such a weak candidate can weaken a strong one throughout the primary, but it won't change the fact that only the strong one can compete come November.

If Obama is nominated, Obama will lose to McCain. If Clinton is nominated, Clinton will likely beat McCain. There are too many people like myself for whom BO is simply not an option, and who will vote only for Clinton or McCain.

Supporters of BO should stop pretending they care about the machinations in FL and MI prior to the votes in those states.

The truth is that they want their candidate to continue to dispatch his lawyers to those states to make sure votes are not counted and do not affect the nomination outcome. They are happy to see their candidate fight for the nomination by throwing up legal obstacles to re-votes in those states.

They and their candidate are happy to accept an "Affirmative Action" nomination based on fighting against millions of voters.

We learned in 2000 that candidates who send lawyers to disenfranchise voters are scumbags. The actions of BO and his supporters in the Florida and Michigan debacles land them squarely in that category.

Members of Obama's fanbase are so entrenched in their cult they don't understand that the article is an argument that the current system neither makes sense nor is "democratic."

Therefore pro-Obama arguments based on being ahead by tiny "pledged delegates" margins (margins achieved through winning undemocratic caucuses in red states) or without counting Florida or Michigan are worthless. They are presented as "democratic" arguments but there's nothing democratic about them.

All of the arguments favoring Obama depend on ignoring the truth about his chances in November (zero) and ignoring the fact that neither candidate can be legitimately called the most popular.

Like the entire BO campaign, it's a faith-based opinion with nothing resembling evidence backing it up.

There are a lot mischaracterizations here of the Obama camp positions: First of all, Obama did run a couple ads in Florida for which he got explicit DNC permission because they were on cable channels that broadcast nationally.

Obama's lies about DNC permission were rapidly debunked. Obama lied in his pledge to not run ads in Florida. Clinton and Edwards had no problem complying.

ABC News on Obama's "DNC" lie

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-wrong-abo.html

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., inaccurately claimed Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee has defended his decision to launch a national cable buy reaching a substantial number of homes in Florida, a state which violated D.N.C. rules by scheduling its contest before Feb. 5.

"The DNC has consistently said that we have not broken that pledge," said Obama.

Obama's claim is not true.

"The DNC has not weighed in on the pledge because it was a pledge with the state party chairs from the four early states, not the DNC," DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton told ABC News.

All HRC and her campaign had to do was show some respect to the process and go to the trouble of learning how it works.

The way the process works is the superdelegates may vote for either candidate, regardless of whether one or the other holds a slight advantage in pledged delegates or the popular vote. They are encouraged to weigh those factors in their decision, along with the fact that Barack Obama cannot win in November.

The rules say that when neither candidate reaches the pledged delegate threshold (those numbers are arrived at through undemocratic means in many of Obama's states which held caucuses), the supers step in.

So "little guy" donations to Obama go for feeding the homeless, since David Axelrod doesn't get paid?

He shouldn't, since he's merely Xeroxing the "hope and change" campaign he ran for Deval Patrick, but something tells me he'll probably exiting the unsuccessful Obama campaign come November with a few million of his own.

David Axelrod and Obama aren't running a brilliant campaign, they are being shoved down the public's throat by the mainstream media. Likewise Penn isn't running a bad campaign.

It's so bad that SNL can parody the situation and mainstream audiences "get it" so don't try to argue it isn't the truth.

Obama will lose in November if nominated, however.

No amount of media bias in his favor is going to convince American voters that an empty suit with two years of experience (doing basically nothing), strong ties to Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, and a wife who wasn't proud of her country until this year is qualified or suited for the presidency.

Too many of us have already decided there are really only two choices in this campaign: Hillary Clinton and John McCain.