I heard some caller to Lynn Samuels (Sirius Left) say Obama was the antiChrist. It wasn't hyperbole; this guy really thinks it, and I got the impression a whole swath down South does too. How does one campaign against that, exactly?

btw, I think y'all are being hard on Dave. I think he was just making the point that it's not just Repubs who are going down this road against Obama but that it's been Hillary as well. Or even, that Hillary did it first. Kinda true, no?

That line's a keeper.

Thanks al loomis.

I don't think anyone here is gonna argue with your last post.

I read the Wilentz article and found it wanting. That Hillary has been treated harshly in the press is fair to say. That Obama is responsible for it is a case Wilentz did not satisfactorily make.

Please go to youtube and watch Obama in his debates and answering questions about race and about the Clintons. Use your own sensory judgment instead of buying some storyline that Obama "painted the Clintons" as racist--just because your candidate is losing. In fact, Obama deliberately and graciously let the Clintons off the hook and said quite clearly that Bill Clinton is not a racist. Cynics and conspiracy theorists will never believe a simple truth when there is something much more convoluted to buy into that justifies their own loss. Just remember, though, that that is what we accused the Bush White House of--Orwellian rhetoric. Black is white, war is peace, tax cuts for the rich will help the poor. When Obama goes out of his way to make it clear that the Clintons themselves are not racists, you have to make the case that in saying so he's perpetrating a Machiavellian plot to demonstrate otherwise. The burden of proof is not on those of us who accept the simpler explanation, one that is verified viscerally by our own senses.

I was nervous when both Obama and Clinton got strong-armed into giving specific "end-the-war" strategies at one of the earlier debates, long before either had enough information for such foolish projections. (And they won't get enough information until after inauguration). The kind of gotcha mentality of moderators like Tim Russert has resulted in impulsive statements that have now become working policy positions.

I'm one of those Dems who's not sure whether we should yank everybody out right away. I was vehemently against the war (and am voting for Obama for that reason), but I distinguish between the decision to go in and the subsequent decisions once in. I agree with those who have predicted that these promises by both candidates will blow up in the face of whomever gets to the White House.

At any rate, it seems unfair to hold Clinton responsible for someone else's interpretation of her words and record. Count me among the disappointed that Obama would exploit this issue.

I know what you're saying, but I don't agree with you that the problem is his alone. I think it's true of almost all politicians; they have to pander here and there and end up putting together a patchwork of policy positions that they try to live up to. (Think: "No new taxes"). When they can't live up to their exact words, they pay a price. I've read lots of analysis that says GB, Sr., really helped the economy when he raised taxes, but he was thrown out as a result. It's a powerful conundrum for anyone who manages to get to the Oval Office.

I honestly think both Hillary and Barack are pretty good about nuance and complexity. I think they're both really bright and will manage as well as anyone to get out of impulsive promises without losing a lot of political capital. I don't see either one of them as being worse than the other here. I'm sorry that Obama is playing this particular game, but the truth is that no one knows how closely he plans to stick to his own plan. There just isn't a senior advisor out there talking about it.