Chicago Tribune, Factcheck.Org, Washington Post: Obama Never Represented Tony Rezko

[HAL 9000 96]

Look at it this way, if Hillary wins the nomination how do you think the black voters will feel about voting for her in November? At least some of them will hold a grudge and vote third party or not at all. With the way the elections have been going the last few times every vote counts. But if Obama were not running and these fights were not happening she could count on solid support from the black voters.

I was 5 when Reagan was elected, so this is based on what I've read. I've read that Reagan and GWH Bush ran a similarly acrimonious and nasty primary campaign against each other. I've also read that the campaign seemed to tear the party apart. I've also read that Reagan mended fences by asking him to be his running mate (and he agreed).

Is a Hillary/Barack ticket out of the question?

It could be possible, as long as both came out during the selection process (of a running mate) to show how they could bridge their differences for the good of the nation.

I also see a good deal of understanding in Gary's logic the last couple of posts. These things could and may happen if people play the politics of divisiveness. I still believe folks can bridge certain gaps, especially if reminded of what they've had to put up with over the last two terms.

In a perfect world the gaps could be bridged. This isn't a perfect world. Even if the rep candidates took the high road and didn't exploit the divisions created between Obama and Clinton there are a lot of people out of the reps control that will. As Troll points out a viral campaign to fan the flames would be easy to do. In a close race it could make all the difference.

I agree 100% with the worldly vision. However, the goal may make the smoke clear and both politicians and voters may yet have better judgement beyond Republican smear tactics and decide to unify as best they can. Honestly I don't see that happening. Every election dirty campaigns tend to get worse, but people also do tend to get more weary of them as time passes. Who knows?

And I don't think Republicans would be wise by trying their typical smear this year... too much is at stake for them.

Anyway, got visitors tonight.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I believe Paul and even Nader if he so decided to join the mess at some point, would not have as significant an effect on the election numbers as the independent factor did in 2000 and in 1992. This election, after this initial smoke has cleared, will probably come down to the Republican party and what its accomplised over the last 8 years and the Democratic party and what is has attempted to accomplish in the same time.

Ron Paul has a VERY substantial and loyal base at this point. Many long time republicans are becoming tired of the neo-cons running the party now. Ron Paul is their answer to true conservative values.

I thought the guy was a quack for a long time, then I saw an interview with Tim Russert or some schmuck. The guy was belittling all of his points (it was actually quite unprofessional of the interviewer), but he was genuine and consistent.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Peggy Noonan, writing in the WSJ:

We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."

In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested he wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the back door of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?

Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html