MSM is now finally on to Obama's grandiose game. Let's hope the good folks in SC have seen the truth before they cast their vote.

Anyone who believes that because of McCain's public and honorable rejection of torture he is superior to any Democratic candidate on this subject, should think again. As I wrote almost two years ago, "He tacked onto his "anti-torture" law, an amendment that forbids the federal courts to "interfere" with Guantanamo, with "enemy combatants" held for years without charges, and with "military tribunals" set up by an out-of-control President...Say goodbye to the Great Writ, say hello to the Red White and Blue Gulag, thanks to the cuddly, cute, "honest-sounding" McCain and his toadying. What will our country do when HE's President??"

Hillary Clinton has denounced this vile approach and voted against McCain's bill. She saw then, in 2006, how unAmerican it really was. It's all very well for him to repeat that "waterboarding is torture", but thanks to him no prisoner will get the chance to tell anyone in a court of law that he had been subjected to it.

I'm not sure if we will be in clover or not, but McCain and specifically and categorically renounces the use of all forms of torture, including the method of waterboarding. So does Ron Paul, I've recently been informed.

So Clinton's claim that she needs to get into office before she can really take a position seems specious to me, but if it floats your boat...

Obama's main problem is not his skin color; or his age; or his experience or lack thereof. His biggest problem is that he has failed to fill in the blanks of which there are many. I have never seen a candidate who has more question marks hovering over him and he knows it, and his campaign managers know it. Without specifics as to what change Obama intends to bring about; what page he wants to turn in which book; and how he intends to do it, he will not win the votes of anyone but the young and enthusiastic and the educated elite who don't necessarily want for very much anyway but truly get off on supporting a candidate who could pass for a black version of Gary Cooper.

What Obama might very well face, once SC is over with, is a mountain too high to climb, because Hillary Clinton is the ultimate fill-in-the-blanker and she has hard support from the base, from people who have suffered economically, from Latinos *who will likely come out in great numbers to vote for her* and from women, especially from women.

Obama has about ten days to draw considerable numbers of these contingencies away from Hillary and the voters within those contingencies have some questions which, so far, have not been answered by Obama:

1. I am a woman. If I choose Obama, what is in it for me?

2. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Why are you throwing President Clinton under the bus and opening up a dialogue about President Reagan? That scares me Obama. Please be specific.

3. I am a Latino. If I vote for Obama, does that mean his huge black following will encourage him to forget about me and all of us Latinos (who aren't all that popular among African Americans?)

4. I am in need of things and so is my family. After Obama's speeches which make me feel almost euphoric, I feel insecure again.

Obama played hard to the college circuit across the country. Fourteen thousand to forty thousand people attended each rally in the early days of his campaign. He was heralded as the absolute savior. Today the reality has set in that it wasn't enough. The February 5th state elections will bring out women, rank and file Democrats and Latinos/Asians and so far, they register hard support for Hillary.

I, too, am waiting for Obama to fill in the blanks. Even though I realize it was never his intention to do so, at least not in the meaty, policy-wonky way that Hillary has always done. That "visionary" thing has a downside. It really needs fuel to keep it going.

Anonymous, you were closer to the truth than I believed you to be, so you deserve my apology. I do think you extrapolate quite a bit to call a "volunteer county" person "a Clinton staff member." And I can't imagine why you forgot to mention the rapid and direct and public response by the Senator. I suppose that was something that didn't fit your ongoing and USUALLY misleading narrative on the Clintons. Like the latest calumny--her presumed refusal to take a stand on waterboarding. Here's the entire statement:

Kornblut and Balz interview, Monday, Oct 8, 2007

"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."

I think you have to stretch this comment way out of shape to get the reading you provide. To me, it means she suspects there have been not just waterboarding, but other things as horrible or worse.

Still, you aren't naive as I accused you of. And certainly not a liar--which I expressly hoped you weren't. Now if you could only be fair, we'd be in clover.

Is the Washington Post a strong enough authority for you doc5467?

Here is the article:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/05/clinton_campaign_volunteer_out.html

Just because we support Obama doesn't mean that we'd make stuff like this up. Because of this and because of Clinton's position on waterboarding (she refuses to state her position) I don't know if I can vote for her ever.

Sad. Really, considering that I once admired her and voted for her husband twice.

Your assertion that a Clinton staff member in Iowa sent out the infamous email which falsely claimed Senator Obama was a muslim, is a lie. If you have any evidence to the contrary, the entire media in this country would just love to have it. I can only hope that you personally are merely naive enough to believe something you've been told, and not as patently dishonest as the person who claimed such a thing. If this is what we are to expect from Obama supporters, and is not rejected firmly by the Obama campaign, then he deserves to be defeated.

And you presume to dismiss the entensive and persuasively cited list that Sandy provides! Can you say "irony?"