He's got plenty of baggage, as it's now appearing. Ayers, Wright...

The argument is so invalid, it's unbelievable.

He has no example of "unifying" anything, quite infact, it's becoming more and more obvious that Catholics, Hispanics, White-Rural will be willing to vote for Hillary but not Obama.

This is more of a character issue, rather than a political issue.

He delivered a speech against Iraq because it was advised by his political strategist at the time - he needed to secure the liberal base in order to win his state ticket.  Interestingly, he also used legal manuevering to muscle out a fellow Democrat who had seniority and was expected to run on that ticket in his stead - a tendancy that is repeating itself in this campaign.

Once he began running for U.S. Senate, at a time when the war was popular, he wrote in his own book that he began to think his opposition to the war was wrong.  He also said he wasn't sure how he would have voted after all.  By 2004, his thinking had morphed into this: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."  He removed the speech from his website, calling it "dated"

When asked by Tim Russert on Meet the Press last year why he didn't speak out against the war in 2004, he said it would not have been politically convenient, because we had just nominated Kerry, who, like many Democrats, voted to authorize the use of force.

By September of 2004 he spoke out publicly against any withdrawal from Iraq.  He said that would "make things worse."  Again, this was to conform with the politically popular viewpoint at the time.

Later that month, he began to advocate sending additional troops to Iraq, to expand and extend the war, "if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country."

He stressed this further in November, on the Charlie Rose show.  "Once the decision was made , then we've got to do everything we can to stabilize the country [...] because we'll have too much at stake in the Middle East.  And that's the position I continue to take."  The Dubya rationale, almost word for word.

For the next year he said almost nothing on Iraq, and voted identically to Hillary each and every time.  By November of 2005, sensing a change in the political winds, he modified his position and said "we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. Military footprint in Iraq."  "Notice that I say reduce, and not fully withdraw", he stressed.

Out of nowhere, in late October of 2006, Obama had a revelation, and proclaimed the urgent need for "all the leadership in Washington to execute a serious change of course in Iraq."  I wonder what was on his mind?

By February 10, 2007, his position has shifted yet again, and he said it was "time to start bringing our troops home" right NOW.  He emphasized that he had "a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008."

Why the sudden reversal?

After spending years reinforcing the Republican position and stating countless times that a sudden reversal would be a disastrous idea, why the radical change in thinking?

The answer is clear when you recognize that something else happened on February 10, 2007: the annointed Junior Senator announced he was going to run for President.

Where does Barack really stand on Iraq?  We don't know.  We can take cues from his top foreign aid advisor, who have recommended plans to keep a substantial contingency of 80,000 troops in Iraq past 2010.  Or perhaps we can take a cue from another one of his advisers, who is the author of the famous "Afghan Trap" strategy that was responsible for creating the radical terrorist organizations that would later be responsible for 09-11.  For a man running on an anti-war platform, he has surrounded himself with some of the most hawkish Democrats alive today.

And is his 16-month time table a real commitment, or another broken promise?  Notwithstanding the fact that another foreign policy adviser confessed that it was a "best case scenario" that he "almost certainly would not" stick to if elected, no serious independent analyst seems to think he will do it either.

There are some good reasons to support Barack Obama - his attempt to pull off Dean's 50-state strategy is one.  But the Iraq Myth is not.

Of the three remaining candidates for President of the United States, two have admirable track records for bi-partisan work.  Barack Obama is not one of them.

In their expose "Star Power, Minor Role", the NY Times notes that Barack disappointed fellow democrats by saving his political capital, and backing down from the tough fights.  At times he would have his name added to a bill, but several senators recall instances in which the Messiah would come to a meeting, say a few words, and leave - saving the heavy lifting for others.

In a series of interviews conducted by the Boston Globe, numerous Republican Senators indicated their strong respect for Hillary Clinton.  Several of them considered her the "go to" person if you needed to get something serious done in a bi-partisan way.

It is well known that she entered the Senate with the potential to have a huge chip on her shoulder.  But she chose not to.  She kept her head down, and worked hard.  Her technique was so admired that it became known as the "Clinton Method", and when the Junior Senator first entered the Senate, Hillary was one of the mentors he turned to for guidance.  Her advice was simple: work hard, tend to your constituents.

As this contest continues, I cannot help but feel that Barack, or at least most of his supporters, do not understand what unity actually entails.

There is a big difference between "come together" and "come to me".  Unity that is simply the end-result of shutting out all opposition is a dictatorship.  So Unity in and of itself can be good or bad.  What matters is how you get there.

It strikes me as curious that so many Obama supporters chastise President Clinton for his "triangulation".  I don't think they ever stopped to think that "reaching across the aisle", "working together", "unity" and "triangulation" all amount to the same thing: working toward the middle and reaching a compromise.

Barack has talked about working together a lot.  But Hillary Clinton has actually walked the walk, time after time after time.  I think we do need to come together, but I can see through the media smears and recognize that Hillary is actually someone who can do it.

"Ability to sway the public with his speaking" is not at the top of my list of criteria, to be frank.  I acknowledge it is a useful skill.  But Dubya also has the ability to sway the public with his speaking (outrageous and offensive as that is, but the truth is.. he sways people..).

Hillary does not have his oratory skill.  But I'm choosing a President, not a Pep-squad Captain.  She could never have gotten where she is today if she lacked the ability to be persuasive.

"He has no baggage or unfinished business" is a polite way to say "he has no experience and won't know what he's doing."  Our entire political structure, which has endured more than two centuries, is not simply going to melt away in the glorious sunlight of Obama.  Special interests don't go away either, as you can see in Obama's case: after delivering speeches stating that public financing was the ONLY WAY (his words) that we would ever see real change in this country, it looks like he plans to break his pledge after all.  Once he got a taste of special interest dollars (they account for over 60% of his fundraising thru February, who knows what they are up to now), he decided they weren't so bad after all.

On the other hand, if we know one thing about life, it is this - we grow through struggle.  We learn through failures.  These are the experiences that, if we're made of the right stuff, harden our resolve and ultimately allow us to rise to the challenge of our time.

The last person you would hire as a CEO would be the guy who never made a mistake.  Why?  Because he won't know what the hell to do when he does make one, as we all will, from time to time.  Hillary learned a lot from her battles in healthcare reform - remember - this was not even a topic on the nation's conscience until she demonstrated the leadership to raise it.  It didn't work, but she got back up, and we have SCHIP in no small part due to her.

I would not hold it against someone to have made a mistake - what matters much more is how they respond in the aftermath of it.

If the Democratic candidate loses, we all lose.

I know it's difficult to accept, but politics is really only about winning elections. Ideology and principles don't do a bit of good if you don't win. (Princpled stances and ideology are fine, but they rarely wins elections, especially not for Democrats.)

Nice try for you. Look it up. I dare you. Every week there was a diary saying Clinton was unelectable. Everyone said Obama or Edwards were the only candidate who could beat the Republicans. Again, Exhibit A: Daily Kos.