How in the world did this man Obama get to where he is?

It is outrageous to think that we have so many ignoramus in this USA.

ABC were a little late bringing up those truths, we should have seen MSNBC and CNN doing the same thing.

ABC WERE CORRECT AND THE DEBATE WAS GREAT.

Unfortunately the media won't admit it and apologize to the American public. It is easier to condemn ABC.

He is starting to show his true colors and people are recognizing some of the lies SO why is he still running?

Shame on you Barak Obama.

After 8 months of negative, insulting comments from all cable and print media, Hillary Clinton is still standing. One bout of a 45 minute cross-examine for Obama and listen to those same Obama supporters blame the media. take the punch and move on or throw in the crying towel.

We've had enough of liars and cheats playing dirty over the last 24 years. Shut the fuck up with the nit picking and tell the truth for once. Jeez!

OK, Obamaniacs, if your candidate is so wonderful, why haven't all the superdelegates signed up with him by now and ended this primary campaign? Two good reasons: one, they don't REALLY know what the voters think. With PA, IN, NC, KY, WV and other states still to vote, the possibility exists that Obama simply won't be able to close the deal with the voters overall.

But that still doesn't explain why the superdelegates haven't already tipped toward Obama and ended this thing BEFORE PA and the other remaining states. They could have done so, especially if they believed that Obama was a much stronger candidate. Still can. But they haven't.

Which leads to my second point: the supers haven't gone to Obama because they are afraid -- THEY, LIKE US, DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO THIS MAN IS, WHAT HE BELIEVES, WHAT FURTHER SKELETONS ARE IN HIS CLOSET, ETC. ETC. In other words, he is a heck of a gamble, and politicians like more certainty.

As a citizen and uncounted Floridian, so do I want greater certainty in a candidate. A lot of other people feel the same way, and many of them would vote against Obama even though they are Democrats.

Of course, you could nominate Hillary . . .

We need to consider a number of things here.

Hillary's approach to the campaign resembles Bush's via Rove. Trying to make her own weaknesses stick to the other guy, attacking constantly no matter what, not bothering to really sell yourself at all in favor of all this ugly stuff, etc...

Aside from that 30% that still approves of Bush, I'd say it's a pretty sure bet that neither of these gentlemen are on the other 70 percent's hero list at this point in time.

I don't recall democrats by and large approving of this style of politics or being swayed by it. Why would you attempt to use it in the primaries?

Those swinging Dems who DID respond to it have just experienced 8 years of the Bush administration as a consequence for their actions and you can almost feel how bad it smarts every time they try their old arguments and people bring up the fact that that sort of thinking got Bush elected.

Hillary has two demographics going for her. Baby Boomers and 35+ year old white women. Both have been very responsive to identity politics. Boomers love having their egos stoked with affirmations of how wisdom comes with experience. And older guard feminists seem to be at the root of this "Because she's a WOMAN!" phenomenon.

Hillary's fatal flaw is that she looked for the easiest demographic wins first but never bothered to consider how she might be able win everybody over. She started to lose the second she put more focus on Obama than herself.

So yeah, good luck with those attacks. I'm personally putting every 527-associated democrat on my sh-t list which is exactly where I put every pro-Iraq war voting democrat and that's another one of Hillary's BIG problems.

Clinton's health care plan reduces prices until everyone can afford it who isn't already covered by medicaid. THEN it mandates that people purchase insurance.

I live in a state with Mandates, courtesy of Romney. It hasn't exactly been a killer deal. I think it's a fair and open question to ask exactly what kind of coverage will be available that 'everyone can afford'. I'm self employed, so I know exactly how much insurance costs for individuals and families.

From USA Today

[...]premiums have disappointed some who thought they would be lower. Betsy Smith, 61, a part-time college instructor in Brewster, has insurance that she buys on her own for $560 a month, with no annual deductible. She says many of the new policies offered through the state cost the same or more. In her area, Smith could choose among 12 plans with drug coverage through the Connector, with monthly premiums ranging from $409 (with a $1,500 annual deductible) to $923 (with no deductible).
"Everything I see and read is that this reform plan is 'new' and 'affordable,' " Smith says. "Someone needs to understand that affordable for me is not $600 a month."
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070702/1a_cover02.art.htm

Why do Obama's supporters claim that he is "relentlessly positive" and that he never attacks Clinton?

I don't know anyone who would say he "never attacks". The issue isn't whether you attack or not (you should attack your opponents positions if you disagree with them), but the nature and substance of the attacks. Obama hasn't focused on the easy, snarky attacks that would be so easy. He has instead focused on issues. Your example of health care is a great one, he's not attack Hillary's bowling prowess or her pastor or her language, he is attacking her policies.

How about the old claim that "her health care plan would force people who can't afford health insurance to buy it anyway" as an explanation of mandates?

That's an attack, and it's a lie.

Clinton's health care plan reduces prices until everyone can afford it who isn't already covered by medicaid. THEN it mandates that people purchase insurance. Otherwise, research shows that people who aren't at much risk (healthy, young people) often gamble by going uninsured. This takes money out of the system which would ordinarily support older, less healthy people. Furthermore, when these uninsured gamblers DO get injured or sick, they use the emergency room, and taxpayers end up paying for them anyway. Virtually everyone who studies this says that mandates will improve the performance of the type of health care system both Obama and Clinton propose.

You haven't actually said anything that contradicts what Obama says. In the end she is still forcing people to pay private insurance companies. Many people in this country are living hand to mouth and pay check to paycheck. When you are in that situation the only insurance you can afford is free. This is what Obama is saying. He is saying that forcing people to buy private insurance is not the right thing to be doing. There is no lie there, it is a straightforward disagreement.

That Obama uses scare tactics like this is shameful and dishonest and negative, negative, negative.

I don't know. I actually thought debating public policy in this manner was quite the deal. Maybe you prefer arguing over whether we should "denounce" or "reject" or maybe we should all just insinuate that Obama may be an undercover Islamic extremist.

-- swinick