The real biggest difference is that Obama is taking money from the same industries, it is just not coming directly from a lobbyist so he can say that. He has taken a great deal of money from the insurance industry, nuclear energy and every where else, its just it comes diretly from the execitives.

If you think he has raised all this money on $25 donations, you are kidding yourself. His campaign manager David Axelrod came from one of the largest nuclear energy companies and he has figured out how to use the language to make you think all the money is from the people.

From what I've seen here, neither side walks aways clean. I've heard both sides' dirty talking points so many times I don't know why I bother reading the comments anymore. If I could turn off the "anonymous" posters altogether, I'd be a happy little boy (c'mon, Salon).

Here are your marching orders depending on which side of the fence you fall: Clinton is Satan. Obama is Jim Jones. No go out and find any articles that allude to these candidates and post this ad naseum.

Is Krugman blind, stupid, or deluded?

This, to me, has always been the biggest problem with the Democratic Party. I hate to tell you but the world is a big scary place full of swift-boaters, people who can twist even the most pristine record into a tawdry transcript of debauchery and ilk. Toughen up! For crying out loud! Obama supporters are passionate. They are primarily young but they are predominantly under-represented. And for the first time in what seems to be eons, we have someone that seems, through all our squinty-eyed suspicion, to be a candidate that is for and by the people. I understand others want of a different candidate. I have nothing against Clinton. She's a fine woman. But, to me, she is entrenched. She is part of the corporate structure that I have seen decimate our democracy and I want a change. We, as a party, have to stop whining. We have to stop examining our cuts and scrapes like some toddler after a fall. We will survive arguments amongst ourselves and we will continue to debate and toss grenades because, baby, they are going to be raining down upon us once a nominee is selected and the Republicans take aim. We, as a party, must test our strength, test our collective determination to see if we can go up against what’s in store for us later. Fighting amongst ourselves is part of the process. Once we have settled on a candidate, and that would mean “we” as in the people of the party not said “super-delegates”, then we can pull back together and show how very unified and strong we really are. If Clinton wins, if Obama wins, nothing, not one damn thing, will stop us from getting to our goal. The goal of taking back our country, setting ourselves on the right global path and cleaning up the mess that has been made for the last eight years. So let other members of our party have their say, let the liberals, conservatives and all those in between come to the mike and voice their concerns. Then maybe, just maybe, everyone will feel included and part of the process and, in turn, will immerse themselves fully in a course of action that depends completely upon the participants to succeed.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

Michelle Obama wasn't asked whether she would support HRC. She wasn't asked whether she would vote for her. She was asked whether she would "work" to get her elected. Well, why *should* she? She's somebody's wife. She has a career of her own completely outside of Democratic politics. Why shouldn't she go back to it if her husband isn't in the running? Can't she at least admit that this is something she would have to mull over?

If this question had been posed to Barack Obama and he had responded similarly, I would have a bigger problem with it. It's his job to serve his country and the Democratic party. It's not hers.

Incidentally, if we're going to discuss Krugman's column, why not throw Frank Rich in as well? See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?em&ex=1202878800&en=e24742716b04417f&ei=5087%0A

I'm either going to have to settle for no universal healthcare, let's do away with SSI, let's trash democrats Obama, or settle for can't get elected because she is so vilified by the right, voted for war and never looked back Clinton.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, one jackoff is black and the other jackoff is vagina.

Whoopty-do.

...Paul Krugman is absolutely correct. At my precinct, the Obama supporters were rude to the Clinton supporters. Additionally, in their comments of support, NOT ONE spoke of Obama's policies, plans, or ideas. Instead they spoke in reverential adoration of his message of hope and change, and his ability to bring the country together -- then they booed the next Clinton supporter who spoke.

Nice.

Yes, my support for Obama is largely anti-clinton:

Don't want a Clinton dynasty

Do not want a co-presidency. And yes, it will be one.

Do not want a baby-boomer, It's time to hand the reigns to the post-Vietnam generation.

Don't want the divisiveness the Clintons bring with them

(And because of this the good possiblity she'll lose to McCain)

Clintons won't release Tax forms, Obama did. What's with the secretiveness?

Voting for that cowardly 'presidential authorization' She's trying to have it both ways. Voted for the war, but be able to deny it now. Very disingenuous.

PUTTING HER NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT (Obama didn't). publicly said it doesn't matter because votes won't count, AND NOW SHES WORKING TO GET TAINTED MICHIGAN DELEGATES SEATED. That is just plain sleazy power-politics.

Another NY times opinion piece, same day from William Kristol, says a lot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11kristol.html

They're big meanies who just want to pick on poor little girls like Hillary.

More of the same from the Clinton camp.

Nothing to see here.