Well is it pandering if what you say is true? Has anyone proved that Hillary hasn't been hunting? I haven't been hunting in years, but I was taught to hunt by my father. I don't think Hillary has made any claim of frequent hunting. As to beer, Hillary does drink beer. I remember actually reading an article about what people eat and drink on the campaign trail. She likes burgers and pizza and beer. No one has ever accused her of being a tee-totaler and she has never claimed this.

So she has been hunting and she drinks. Where's the pandering?

Barak has brought one persona to the campaign. Thoughtful, poised, committed and restrained.

Notice him at the AP meeting where he graciously let the Osama reference gaffe off the hook with humor?

He is unfortunately running against Sibyl who has found a voice 5 times and market tested at least 5 different personalities showing soft side funny side weepy side and serial killer. I was very much a Clinton defender when they were victims. Now they are on the dark side.

This year's presidential election is simple, and here are the simple facts:

If McCain runs as a traditional Republican and continues to place himself square center with Bush and Republican policies he will lose in a landslide. All the polls consistantly show this.

If McCain runs as a reformer, he will not out-reform either Obama or Clinton. The eventual Democratic nominee will always be able to out-reform McCain. As McCain diverts from traditional Republican stances he loses his party's core, not so for the Democrat.

In this game of politics it is already checkmate.

This should really make the "honest" Hillarobots drink some more of those talking points on electability and experience and trustworthiness. Read on

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html?hpid=topnews

PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

To me, (in Fester's most unhumble opinion), the pandering is in the timing. Maybe you think this is a strength in Hillary, but she likes to leave a lot of the canvas blank and then paint it in at the last moment. Drives me nuts. (I'm still waiting to hear how she will paint in Bill's role in a Clinton II administration).

Where does opportunism go over the line? I always liked Jim Webb because he was a no B.S. kind of guy. His 2nd amendment support is not pinned on.

Obama is not above "us" Joan, but he is above you. He is not a scared concern troll hiding behind a two bit opinion as you do, Joan. He is in the trenches, fighting for a vision for America that people like you may be too petrified to see, and so you have to try to diminish who he is and what he is doing by writing your nervous little opinion pieces, clinging (yes, "clinging") to the security of your small views. You couldn't handle even a squall, let alone the storms Obama has faced over and over and over his entire life. You'd rather be safe and secure behind your tissue of concern than stand for anything. You're way too frightened to have anything useful to say about Obama and his campaign to tell the truth to America - because he believes that most of us (not including you. apparently) can handle it and arise to it.

The possibility that a more liberal voice might have a better idea what Americans actually want is very threatening to this power base - the "centrist" alliance between Republicans, money, and DLC doormats.

A 2004 Harris Poll indicates that 18% of Americans identify themselves as Liberals.

Since you suggest that Liberals may be more in tune with what Americans want, I assume you mean most Americans, not just 18% of Americans. Can you please supply any evidence that supports your "possibility"?

Now I am getting your drift. I hope you will forgive me. I am not always a good reader, especially past my bedtime.

Let me rephrase what I think you are saying. You are saying that Obama has done well with upper class liberals and AA voters. Correct? You are saying that he is now facing the problem of winning working class voters and that his "base" if you will is secure.

So you are wondering why Clinton does not have similar concerns about making inroads into Obama's base. Correct? Especially should she win the general election wouldn't she need "well-educated liberals whose generosity" would help her launch a general election campaign?

I think the answer is that if she doesn't win PA there will be no general election campaign for her anyway. I think it is a matter of tending to first things first.

Where do you think those voters will go if Clinton is nominated? Do you think that they will vote for McCain?

Did you read the TNR article that Joan linked to? I thought it was a pretty good article. Obama's problems will begin if/when he wins the primary votes he needs to convince the superdelegates to swing for him. Then he will face problem with voters whose demographics didn't really matter that much for him in the primary and he will not be able to depend upon his caucus strengths.

BTW, I just hate the caucus idea and not because Obama has been winning them. As someone who has worked with disabled people, I believe that caucuses are a violation of the spirit if not the letter of ADA law. A circumstance where there is no early balloting which allows the disabled, the aged, and the housebound to secure a mail in ballot is egregiously discriminatory. I worry that should Obama become president he would bring pressure to bear to keep the caucus process because it favors him. However, it is immoral to disenfranchise voters who cannot otherwise get to the polls. Caucuses are difficult for single parents with small children, old people with walkers and canes and hip problems, and a variety of disabled people -- including those in nursing homes and hospitals. My neighbor down the street doesn't even go to church anymore, so enfeebled is she.

Also, not all possible caucus places offer easy accessibility for the handicapped.

Moreover, they lack privacy, they don't allow for timid people to have the same input, and they are often held during times when working people cannot get off. Primaries rather than caucuses allow working class voters to have their say because if they cannot take off work, they can vote absentee.

Obama's apparent advantages in the primary due to caucuses will disappear in November.