In addition to his ineptitude at being President, Bush owes his low poll numbers to a fatal flaw: arrogance.

Hillary's votes in the Senate have always been positioned for the general Pesidential election and not based on her true stands on important issues - i.e. her vote giving a green light for the invasion of Iraq, and most recently her vote naming Iran as a terrorist state.

From the start of her campaign for President, she has taken on the role of the inevitable Democratic Nominee, in effect believing her own propoganda and showing Bush's fatal flaw of arrogance. She just doesn't get it; instead of voting in the Senate to appease Independent voters for the coming Presidential election, she should have voted her conscience and instead of living in the past and believing her own press, she should have put on a political face of false humility. Unfortunately with her tromping in the Iowa caucus her humility is now real and well deserved.

Jaybird17762001

She had that opportunity but she choose to vote with the Neo-Cons again and designate Iran's army a terroristic group.

She choose to vote for the NEO-CONS WET DREAM.

Is she a Neo-Con.

She did not learn or change. She trusted what Bush was telling her instead of finding out on her own.

She does not know how Washington really works.

It was reported Cheney was holding back the NIE.

Why. She should have found out.

Yet she voted with the Neo-Cons.

It was the beginning of the end for her.

She had a chance to stand up.

She went with the raging gang before and voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq.

Imagine if she stood up and said it was wrong and did not vote for it.

There wouldn't be a Democratic race.

So she didn't learn or change. The Intel Community learned and changed. They put the NIE out to let the world know Bush is LYING AGAIN. They were not going to be blamed again.

It's real simple. Don't trust Bush.

She insisted that her senate run in New York was not a stepping stone to a presidential candidacy. Now we know otherwise.

She is a remarkably astute commodities trader. Learned it by reading books.

Having already failed at a national health care program, it is no wonder that she is cautious.

While it is true that Obama says virtually nothing, he says it well.

How is his website's PLAN any less specific than Clinton's or Edwards? Sometimes a message goes through the antechamber like "Obama doesn't have a plan..." and it echoes no matter how many people are holding up a signed and dated copy of it saying, Here? Do you mean this plan?

I don't think Obama's plan is less specific than clinton's or Edwards. I think Edwards is more detailed, but detail is not the same thing as power to get it done. Edwards knows that the actual details of what actually happens don't depend on him but on what he can accomplish once (if he's) in office.

So acting as if a detailed plan is the only way to tell a fascist from a good candidate is ridiculous. Hitler published a very detailed plan for Germany, but unfortunately, I don't think the German public either read it or believed it if they did.

If you are so worried about Obama's PLAN why do you sign yourself anonymous? Are you worried about the rioters Greenwald mentions just in case Obama doesn't win? That they'll (we'll) come and find you? Why don't you read Obama's website, compare it with Clinton's and Edwards, and then come back with more specific complaints. Which part of his plan don't you like? Which part of his plan would you like to know more about?

Here's the website in case you have trouble finding it:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

and press the Continue Reading button if you want to read (as you seem to) more specifics about Obama's plans.

compare to Clinton's plans here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

and Edwards' plans here:

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

And for Obama's voting record, go here:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

for Clinton's voting record go here:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

for Edwards' voting record go here:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

It's all here and in the open for you to read through, consider, and comment on.

But this fear of Obama based only on rumors and inuendos only is getting annoying. Do you really find that Clinton's voting record and her PLAN are better for American than Obama's.

I'm just wondering. Or have you just been following all the hype? Please let us know when and if you find something real about the senator from Illinois (other than his current popularity) that you've found to be frightened of.

Patrick McKenna I totally disagree with you. JFK, FDR and Reagan all had very detailed, specific plans when they ran for President. Obama doesn't compare to any of these men.

You also say that "the time for rattling a laundry list of proposed legislation is over" and that "the specifics will come later."

That's like buying a car without first taking a test drive, or sigining a contract without first reading the fine print. Only fools do that.

Picking a President without knowing the specifics of what he will do once he is in office is RECKLESS. That's how you end up with a dictator.

And don't forget, the power of the President has been greatly expanded under GW, and the separation of powers has been breached.

Can the “Salon is a shill for Hillary” folks give it a rest. Hillary is the front runner in the polls in every state. Ahead by A LOT in most of those states. BIG front runners get a lot of coverage. And when front runners fail as with Hillary in Iowa, that generates coverage, the “What the fuk happened” kind of coverage. Joe’s article is a “What the fuk happened” kind of article.

As far as Edwards, I never forgave him for not kicking the shit out of Cheney in the VP debates. He had everything he needed to kick his ass which included, the litany of Bush/Cheney monumental fuk-ups, as well as the Bush/Cheney campaign chasing the anti-gay vote while having and supporting an openly gay daughter. If he had kicked Cheneys ass he’d probably be the front runner today. In the end more coverage comes when Edwards more consistently gets the poll numbers and $$$ that Obama and Hillary have.

Obama reminds me that we don’t give a shit about how well people can govern or manage, only how well they campaign. Bush couldn’t manage a McDonalds without bankrupting it and having at least 10 people die from food poisoning, but he can play politics and campaign and thereby win elections.

I used to hire people who couldn’t perform their job anywhere nearly as well as they interviewed. So now in an interview, I push past interviewing skills and probe job history in detail and identify real competencies and results demonstrated from previous employment.

Our candidates have employment history, whether in private industry or government, that’s all I am saying, because in terms of performance, past job history is indicative of a candidates competencies. For example Rudy has shown he is good in a crisis, good at law enforcement, and dumb-ass in just about every other regard. What is Obama good at outside of being surprisingly good at campaigning and fund raising?

This is long winded, but what rankles me, is that few give a real shit about a candidates past record, beyond scripted talking points. The political process reminds me more of “The Bachelor” reality show than actually selecting a leader and manager to do a job. Hillary is a bitch who “triangulates”, Obama is hopeful and “impassions”, and Edwards is “angry” and has a nice hair style. Great, now I have all I need to know to elect the next president.