Okay ... just back off. Let Obama do his job. I voted for him because I trust him. I trust his intelligence, his character,(integrety) his wisdom ( wisdom is different than intelligence), and his courage .... so, back off and give the man a chance to show what he can do. Chris Matthews, I love ya but you are too emotional to be spreading "what ifs" as if you had some all knowing informational source that the rest of us are not privy to ..... emotion and rumor mongering walk hand in hand and you really should just try caring deeply without the emotional hyp .......oh, and Chris ..... I love you dearly but PLEASE let those you interview finish a thought before you interrupt them. What ever happened to "just the facts " in journalism? If I want opinions I can talk to myself .....and Chris ....don't take offense to what I have said ..you are simply a prototype of the rest of the gang. sigh!

does anyone rembember November 22 and what happened

then no mention in any newspapers or magazines

that i can see i thought salon would surely have

some reference to that date????

The most important change being intelligence and competence in governing.

"@ jedlbmm

I would buy your argument that Clinton's campaign managers are at fault for her failure, if only Clinton had stuck to the voice that she most famously found after NH and fired Mr. Penn before she was forced to. The responsibility for a campaign's direction and its success or failure ultimately rests with the person responsible for signing off on the strategic and tactical procedures presented by his or her strategists. You cannot delegate ultimate success or assign blame to the handlers, as this is simply another obfuscation to exonerate the candidate, in this case Clinton, for her kitchen-sink (their term) unguided judgment and lack of cohesive campaign identity.

-- Rob A"

Sometimes we read too much into campaign success as reflection of the management competence of a particular leader. George W. Bush because of his success against Al Gore and Kerry could be said to be more competent in management than his Democratic rivals. Yet the past 8 years epitomizes the level of incompetence in management few have seen in our history. Even his father cannot hold a candle to him in leadership in economic mismanagement.

Sometimes, we pay too much attention to the media pundits in their ignorant analysis and oversimplification of political events and award of winners and losers. Obama probably knows more about this than you on this; explaining why he still picked Hillary notwithstanding all the crap he is taking from these talking heads and Clinton haters including David Broder, New York Times Friedman and others.

It's a very hard task.

How can you campaign against hope and change?

When every comment or critique you make is taken the wrong way?

Obama was formulaic, streamlined, strategic like a sports team.

But he had to work at no drama - for there to be - no drama.

Hillary is used to being damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. She was probably trying not to get accused of being too "bossy" with her campaign staff. I'm sure she was just trying to do the best job she could. She went after experience and knowledge issues - not the "he's not one of us" issues Penn suggested. She pointed out what many of the Republican attacks would be, and the polls did show McCain and Obama neck-in-neck before the economic crisis.

I think part of the reason Obama wants Hillary to be Secretary of State is because he knows just how talented, intelligent, devoted, knowledgeable and capable she is (and how during the campaign they didn't give her enough of the respect she deserves).

I would buy your argument that Clinton's campaign managers are at fault for her failure, if only Clinton had stuck to the voice that she most famously found after NH and fired Mr. Penn before she was forced to. The responsibility for a campaign's direction and its success or failure ultimately rests with the person responsible for signing off on the strategic and tactical procedures presented by his or her strategists. You cannot delegate ultimate success or assign blame to the handlers, as this is simply another obfuscation to exonerate the candidate, in this case Clinton, for her kitchen-sink (their term) unguided judgment and lack of cohesive campaign identity.

Jus' call me Six Pac fer shur.....

This country NEEDS to come fully and firmly to the conclusion that the Iraq war was and is a huge strategic and human rights debacle. Obama is not going to move to a pro-war stance, rather he is surrounding himself with those whose stances are evolving towards his. They (former pro-war people) represent good role models for the two Joes "six-pack" and "plumber" to emulate.

Obama is using his supreme intelligence intelligently.

(In my last post.)

For those who think they can judge her qualifications better than he can.

Sorry Joan, and all who are exceptions - I didn't mean you.

Obama knows Hillary, now better than ever.

You don't.

Many in the press don't truly know Hillary. But they love drama. Love it with a press enhanced passion. They cherry-pick their choice of drama and negativity, invest in it, exaggerate it, twist it, exploit it - milk it in every way they can possibly come up with, and write as though they insist it's the truth. There is an article in New York Magazine where the author writes that there was real emnity btween the Clintons and Obama when they campaigned together recently in Florida. But he doesn't site any sources, "inside" or otherwise, to the "fact." Any objective, insightful observer could see there was no fervent "emnity" there - there was maybe a little initial awkwardness, but mostly real, palpable warmth, excitement, and a growing mutual appreciation and admiration society.

But that's not as much fun to write about. That's not as edgy, or juicy, or satisfying to those in the press who like high drama.

The Clintons were even very sincere during the Democratic Convention. Contrary to what most of their critics love to think, the Clintons are in politics for the right reasons - for the issues, and not their egos. Do they have egos? Yes. Do they work hard? Yes. Do they take defeats hard? Yes. Are they proud of all their hard work and accomplishments? Yes. I have yet to see any politician that does not have an ego.

It wasn't that the Clintons expected Obama to fawn all over them during the primaries, but the press wanted the Clintons to fawn all over Obama. Apparently nothing but praise and worship would do - or else the Clintons were all kinds of bad.

Same with Joe Biden's comment about Hillary being a good VP pick. It was not a gaffe. He was just paying her an honest compliment, while being humble himself. He knows they are both qualified VP candidates, just with different strengths. Here was an instance where the press took Biden too "literally."

The press needs to be less self-making-drama-indulgent, and more responsible, even if it's not as fun or exciting. Even if it's a little more balanced, informed, and enlightened. Who knows, if Maureen Dowd hadn't made such a fuss about the colors of Al Gore's suits, we might have had President Gore instead of President Bush, after all. Imagine the difference less shallowness can make for our future.

Any anyone in the press who insists the drama comes from the Clintons, just leave them alone, and find out how much drama they make without you.

I assure you, to them, it will probably feel like living on a sane, peaceful planet. Maybe even an entirely different planet than they're used to. But the planet they were inspired to work for in the first place.