"What upset me most about Clinton was the sleazy campaign claiming he was a Muslim."

-Please, do show me where the Clinton campaign claimed Obama was a Muslim.

"She's pulled every dirty trick she could think of to win"

-Please provide some sort of objective evidence of this.

"She wants Michigan and Florida to count because she was the only one to court those two states so it's a sucker bet."

-Actually, Obama is the only one to campaign in either of those states, which broke an agreement between the two. Don't hear much about that though. Wonder why? Nice try though.

Obama gave his word (his word!!!) that he wouldn't campaign in Florida, and then campaigned in Florida.

D'oh!

Obama's name was on the ballot initially, but he filed paperwork to remove it. It was a political stunt that backfired, so don't feel bad for him.

Let's also not forget that Obama broke an agreement between he and Hillary not to campaign in Florida. That's even more reason to seat the delegates in Florida anyway.

Who told blacks not to vote?! There were other things on the ballot besides the Democratic primary.

Get your facts straight and stop spouting MSM misinformation and Obama talking points.

1. Obama's name was initially on the ballot in Michigan. He later filed paperwork to have his name removed from the ballot. Political stunt or not, he had every opportunity to have his name on the ballot, and chose to remove it.

2. Obama broke an agreement between he and Clinton not to campaign in Florida with television ads while Hillary did not.

Is this really the type of thing that War Room is going to post about? Come on.

P.S.

Tim, come back!!!!

"Lazio eventually allowed reporters to examine his returns in late August, three months after he first promised to do so."

So does that mean that he promised to release them in May, and then reneged? And that's why the Clinton camp was harassing him? That would be a little different than what Obama is doing to Clinton. She has made clear, from the start, that she would release her tax returns when she's the nominee. She's even conceded and agreed to release them around April 15th. Where's the issue?

How can anyone say that it's Clinton that will say anything in order to win when Obama continues to say things that he doesn't mean in order to get elected. First NAFTA, now this "16 months" thing.

Hey Jude says "What I appreciate about Barack Obama is that he has considerable credibility when he says he will "tell what we don't want to hear," not just tell us what we do want to hear."

Isn't Obama doing that? Telling us what he thinks we want to hear and having no plan to actually do what he says? Don't these two instances (NAFTA, 16 months) damage his credibility? Doesn't this make him the proven "Say anything to win" candidate?

no one has posted FOR labeling food. This isn't a matter of whether the food is safe or not, it's a matter of having a CHOICE about what we eat. It's also yet another example of Republicans being against government regulations unless they are for them. I say put the labels on the food and "let the market decide."

But this is only the first step. If companies advertise that their meat isn't cloned (as you pointed out, this is different than labeling meat as "cloned") the industry will lobby to ban labeling food "not cloned." This is exactly what is happening to the dairy industry, most famously to Ben and Jerry's, over their right to label their product "recombinant bovine growth hormone free."

I'm still shocked that so many Salon readers have no problem with a government that time after time has shunned science in favor of industry "studies" (global warming? Endangered species protection?) telling them "trust us, it's safe."

I agree (even though I'm sure you meant that as a wordy jab at me).

Well, War Room has bottomed out. Claiming that Penn's comment of a shift in voter's opinions is outlandish when a Gallup poll shows Clinton leading nationally by 7 points (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/20/poll-clinton-takes-national-lead-over-obama/) is ridiculous, unacceptable pro-Obama misinformation. Tim Grieve never would have done that, or allowed that on his blog.

Salon better do all they can to hang on to Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Leonard.

Actually, he uses Jake Tapper's report (who is only mentioned after a few paragraphs written by Koppelman) as confirmation of his biased view.

"At least one outside pollster is already dismissing Penn's analysis. On his blog, ABC News' Jake Tapper has the reaction of Peyton Craighill of the ABC News Polling Unit..."

It's a matter of Koppelman seeing something that doesn't fit his pro-Obama bias, and feels that enough people will see it that he needs to explain it away. My point is that Tim Grieve wouldn't have done that, and this is indicative of the way War Room is run now, and frankly it's alienating War Room readers. I find myself spending a lot more time reading Greenwald and Leonard now that Tim's gone.

My problem is that Koppelman found it necessary to waste War Room space explaining the noisy polls away.

I'm done. War Room is now officially an Obama campaign mouthpiece. It is what Fox News is to the Republican Party. Maybe I'll try again after the primary when we're all on the same team again.

...that make people outside the Bay Area less inclined to be an Obama supporter.

What the F are you talking about?