There's a need people. We have a need brothers and sisters. The need is great. The need is real. The NEED is to go negative. Stay with me people on this great journey of HOPE and CHANGE and the NEGATIVE campaign ad.

---------------------

But geez if you are going to go more negative, why announce it, unless it's only so Obama can say "It's not my fault, boo hoo, Hillary made me do it." Also why pick on someone’s tax returns to start on the glorious path of HOPE and CHANGE and NEGATIVITY? Did the IRS miss gross irregularities in Clintons returns? Did the Clintons make too much money? (Poor Obamas house is only worth $1.5 million). Claimed Christmas tips as a deduction?

My guess is that similar as to when he hired election law experts/lawyers to eliminate opponents in order to run unopposed to his seat in the Ill. legislature, Obama wants to hire auditors, detectives, accountants, and lawyers to microscopically go over the returns hoping to turn up another Monica Lewinski dress type moment.

Obama has exposed himself, the false prophet gets a chink in his armour.

I was curious of the outcome if the "winner takes all approach" used by the GOP were adopted by Democrats. Could we get to a winner quicker? humorously enough, no.

The picture of states won of course would look the same with Obama winning close to double the states but my quick math shows about a 200 point swing with Hillary at 1511 and Obama at 1402, but still not near the magic 2025 number.

So regardless of the nomination process, the Democratic party is just about evenly split between two candidates. Whether having this split in the short terms helps or hurts in the general election in the long term is anybodys guess.

Flip a coin or continue endlessly speculating, I think you'd have an equal chance of getting it right.

I understand the RNC is much more adept at manipulating the Media, for Gods sake an idiot like Drudge is more adept at manipulating the media than Democrats, but it is a not valid to assume that since it was covered in Illinois, nationally it can be skipped.

The term "wrondoing" is thrown around with little definition. If wrongdoing is defined as something illegal, then no, Obama is neither indicted or guilty of breaking a law. If the article is a warning that this could spiral insanely out of control into another $70 million dollar criminal investigation leading nowhere, then I don't buy it. Whitewater was used to try to bring down a president and a party, Rezco to shed some light on a political candidates integrity. I believe identifying wrongdoing in terms of ethics, judgement, and integrity is valid in the context of a political contest.

We are not talking about a haircut:

~ Rezco is a known long time influence peddler/sleazebag

~ Rezco investigated by the FBI for ILLEGAL wrongdoing in relation to other Illinois sleazebag politicians

~ Knowing that Rezco was under criminal investigation, Obama enters a property purchasing partnership with Rezco. I guess Obama is just lucky because he gets a large reduction on the purchase price, Rezco gets ZERO reduction in the tied, interdependent transactions.

~ Obama buys part of Rezcos purchased property back from Rezco at cost. Even though Obama states there is no relationship between him and Rezco, there is nothing in Rezcos history that says he normally sells real estate at cost. There is evidence in Rezcos history that he likes to do favors for politicians, legal or otherwise.

~ Rezco INDICTED for ILLEGAL wrongdoing

That Rezco gave donations to a number of other politicial campaigns is a red herring since he did not help any of those recipients in buying personal property. This behaviour was described by Obama as a boneheaded-mistake, but it is not that big of a reach to see it as wrongdoing. It is wrong in judgement and ethics for an elected offical to get involved in that kind of financial transaction. Period.

So for now it worked out great financially for Obama, but not so great for Obamas self-described "new breath of fresh air in politics" theme.

...than having all Clinton and Obama supporters go home.

anarprimarism [(an-uhr-prime-ar-iz-uhm)]

The belief that all existing democratic primaries should be abolished and replaced by something that makes fukkin sense.

Just as Santa Clause does not exist, the politician as saint does not and has never existed. Obamas history in Illinois is of a shrewd politician, for example using lawyers and technicalities to eliminate opponents and run unopposed - does not get shrewder or tougher than that.

And that is the rub. He is not new, and claims to be new. He is not higher but claims to be higher. He is not more politically moral, but claims to be. Hypocrisy is a standard attribute for a politician, but it bites deeper to those politicians who claim the high ground and then have their failings exposed. Put another way, it is not ok to imply sainthood and being above tough, spinning, sharp-elbowed, salt in the wounds politicking, and then practicing the same.

No one is going to convince me that Obamas character is superior or for that matter inferior to Clinton or McCain. I am open to Obama convincing me he has the potential to impact national policy and direction. So far, he has demonstrated ZERO potential in that regard. Convincing people to send him money is not the same as having leadership competency on a national level. TV evangelists are also incredibly adept at getting people to send them money - that by itself is not distinguishing.

Whether you hate or dislike Clintons or McCains positions, they have and continue to impact national policy and direction, Obama never has.

Maybe it comes down to this. I am tired of the ideology and incompetence of the last 7 years, but if I have to get only one quality in a president, I will settle for competency.