So wait -- if you want him to demonstrate "internal fortitude," then what's wrong with him responding to attacks?

I'm hoping he does substantively respond to "attacks"; I've been waiting on that for the 8 months I've been asking/wondering how he's going to accomplish what he claims he'll do if he becomes president. It'd be nice to see that answered but, so far, I've only seen him deriding such questions as the "same old politics". Bullshit. They are fair and relevant questions and I've been mighty frustrated it's taken so long for them to be raised by his Democratic opponents because, without doubt, the GOP will get to them.If that's negative campaigning, I hope we see more of it.

(And, FWIW, I've read his writing and I've read his web site policy papers and I find nothing more than promises atop promises without any details. Every promise sounds GREAT but, without details, it's all talk and no walk. Then again, he can't provide details on half of his stated intentions because they're not part of a president's portfolio. It takes quite the blind eye to ignore such pesky details but we've had 7 years of all hat and no cattle and don't need to take that beyond the 8 we've already signed up for.)

Complaining about an opponent's hard campaigning by whining that they're not being nice isn't much of a response to "attacks" and it doesn't demonstrate much "internal fortitude." Campaigns aren't an exercise in diplomacy. McCain and the GOP will definitely teach Obama that lesson; I only hope it won't be at the expense of the rest of the world.

If this sounds to you like I'd prefer my politicians to run on a platform of "Nothing will ever change, so why bother trying", I would respond that you sound charmingly, if alarmingly, naive.

The Republicans play for keeps while the Democrats have been playing a maddeningly namby-pamby game. The result: Tom Delay's House, Shrub's imperial administration and ineptitude in a Democratically controlled Congress. To heck with that. I've been hoping/praying for years that the Democrats would start busting chops.

Let's be clear: there's nothing new under the sun. Negative campaigning and dirty tricks in politics have been going on for more than 2000 years. Obama's notion of changing how things are done in Washington demonstrates either frightening naivety or cynical pandering. Without doubt, if the Democrats win the White House and hold onto Congress, nothing in the campaign season will affect whether or not it's possible/reasonable to "work across the aisle." Elections really do have consequences.

There's nothing wrong with playing hardball during a campaign. There's nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and dancing on the edge. I'd feel a lot better about Obama's likely nomination if he'd demonstrate some internal fortitude rather than whining about "the same old politics" that has been the same old politics for a lot longer than the United States has been around.

you shouldn't be in the kitchen. Politics is a hardball sport. Barack has a couple of weaknesses I've been concerned about for than a year now. One is obvious: his "change" agenda is a nice wish list that's not backed up by any specific plans (his "plans" elaborate on his wish lists without adding details). The "attacks" by Clinton are reasonable questions and Obama is going to face Clinton times 10 during the general. Which leads to the second concern: is he seasoned enough for the fight ahead? His political background says "no way", all of his political campaigns have been against softball candidates make softer by the fact that a few of them were out and out nut cases. So I'd say that answer to the second concern is "who knows?"

In a candidate, I'm looking for a ball buster. Hillary fits the bill. (FWIW, though, I believe either Hillary or Barack will beat the crap out of McCain.)

duh!

That pretty much says it all.

Sorry folks but this is how meat packing plants work. A downer cow that can be gotten on its feet is worth 4x or 5x (as meat on the hoof) what its worth otherwise (as material for a tallow plant). That's $100s per animal. It's incredibly naive to think that workers (or their supervisors) aren't going to do anything and everything they can to get a weak animal on its feet. Much of the time, the animal is a "downer" because it's old and weak or its hips split during the trip to the slaughter house.

That's why this kind of stuff occurs with inspectors on the site; inspectors who obviously aren't going to a lot of trouble to interfere with "business as usual." Now, there'll be a bit of noise with saber rattling by politicians. In a month or two, things will return to normal.

Forget the punditry... this is the same question that a few of us have been asking for months now and have yet to find a useful answer. "Read Obama's website, it's all there in great detail", I'm told. So, I have and it's all very eloquent, indeed. And what detailed wish-lists. But, how does he propose to accomplish all the things that are on his wish-lists? THAT's where I, for one, find nothing but hot air. Half of the stuff he says he's going to do aren't even the purview of the President and are barely within a President's power to influence. I find it unsettling that he finds it necessary to pander to so gullible a constituency.

I can understand that it's politically better if Obama can get away with skipping over details; pretty wish lists only look pretty when dirty details are kept hidden. So it doesn't benefit Obama to answer the "how" questions if he doesn't have to. I understand that. At the same time, it leaves me to continue wondering whether this pig-in-a-poke will turn out to be just another empty suit.