Not landing the punch

I've noticed that every time Obama is attacked, he finds a way to turn that attack around. The Clintons' attacks that Obama's stance on Iraq was a fairytale or that he brings false hope have been co-opted by Obama. Now he uses those charges in his speeches for major applause.

For the last couple of days, Bill and Hillary are using the line that the Democrats need to nominate a candidate with solutions, not speeches. They've been repeating this basic concept enough to try and magnify a real issue in some people's mind.

I will bet you that we will soon find this "solutions, not speeches" idea coming back at the Clintons with a vengeance. Obama knows how to use a line like that.

And the funny thing is, almost all the time the candidates speak, they could be accused of giving us speeches, not solutions. Unless they want the crowd to fall asleep, no one gives a speech filled with policy details.

Obama's just so much better at giving a speech than any of the candidates this primary season, his opponents just have to try and turn his strength against him.

Watching Clinton stumbling around trying to land a punch in this campaign, I feel like I'm watching Sonny Liston versus Muhammad Ali (okay, I know he was Cassius Clay at the time).

Scorched Hillary

I think the term is "blowback". The Clintons' fired their almost Rovian message at Obama and hurt themselves instead.

Hillary is too tough and too organized to be destroyed by South Carolina's vote, but a loss this big can't just be ignored. And it will be the lead topic of discussion on all of the Sunday shows. The spin should be interesting to watch.

It's great to see the divide and conquer approach didn't work. In fact it did more than not work. Their strategy resulted in a unity of revulsion.

Maybe now Hillary will put a muzzle on Bill.

For a moment in New Hampshire (depending on your personal view), Hillary revealed a human side that connected with people. She got choked up about her fight to help America. That's the Hillary that needs to get out on the campaign trail right now. Of course, if you didn't like Hillary from the start, then you would believe Hillary acted like she was overwhelmed with her struggle to save America. And perhaps she only got choked up because she couldn't believe she was really being challenged and may not get the office she feels she deserves.

I like to think it was the former and not the latter. A genuine Hillary is a much more interesting and compelling candidate. I think America is tired of cynical manipulators and fear baiters.

Obama has the chance to be the transcendent figure he hopes to be. His speech tonight was the message that will help him became that hope.

CNN Debate

Last night's debate was a lot of fun for pundits and conservatives, but it really was a bad night for Democrats.

I left that debate thinking Clinton was petty, Obama was defensive and Edwards was irrelevant. I did not feel pleased that I was probably watching the next president of the United States.

Clinton's attacks on Obama were mostly nitpicking. They made her appear small since she was the one bringing them up. Watching her try to defend misrepresenting Obama's past statements was just painful.

Obama's ability to bring soaring and uplifting rhetoric is wonderful, but he can't do that while having to defend himself against attacks, no matter how silly the attack. This debate made him look much more like a regular politician which is a victory for Clinton. Obama needs to handle himself better in situations like this.

Edwards ended up as the third wheel. When you have to fight with the moderator to get some air time, you don't look very presidential.

I also thought CNN let the debate degenerate to the level of a bad high school debate. I'm also getting so tired of panelist asking questions that are just silly, like asking Obama to respond to Toni Morrison's quote. His response was okay, but the question was just dumb.

Why must Clinton lie?

We all like to joke about the lying nature of politicians, but I still get angry when they lie to me.

I didn't like Clinton when he ran in 1992 because I did believe there was some truth to the rumors of his infidelities. I felt that if someone would risk his career, lie to his family and get others to cover up his lies for him, then there was no way I should be surprised he would lie to me.

I was right.

But I will say that the Clinton lies we are aware of pale in comparison to the lies the current administration tells. We're looking at misdemeanors versus felonies. Lies yes, but the scale is very different.

If I need to start to list Bush's lies for you, chances are you are a Bush supporter and have been able to dodge reality so far so I'm not going to waste time right now trying to enlighten you.

But what got me riled up of late is Clinton is back in the news with his lying ways. The man should realize that we have the Internet available to us. I don't need his smarmy misstatements to tell me about what Obama said about Reagan. I watched what Obama said and it is very different than what Clinton was trying to tell us.

It's strange enough to have a former president campaigning heavily for a candidate in the party's primary, but no one would expect him to do otherwise in this election. But why does he feel the need to lie to us about Obama?

I watched Obama and can see the large gap between reality and what Clinton said, so I'm supposed to believe anything else that Clinton says? He has a history of being a liar. He has a history of manipulating language to be deceitful. But this in your face lie that anyone can see for themselves is over the top.

Clinton is making it hard for me to even consider Hillary. She says he is an asset to her campaign and I think he has been at times, but right now he is doing nothing but reminding voters like me about what I didn't like about the Clintons during the '90's.

McCain and Obama might not be perfect, but they don't seem to be so shameless in their behavior.

Don't we learn?

Following politics is proving to be a great way to increase my stress levels.

If nothing else, these last 7 years should have taught Americans that who we elect to office does matter. I think if something matters, then you should give your decision some thought. I feel like I'm in the minority.

In 2000, we kept hearing that people liked Bush (and were therefore going to vote for him) because he seemed more likable than Al Gore. The phrase tossed around at the time was that W was the guy you would want to invite to your backyard cookout for a beer.

I have lots of friends I like having over to the house for a beer, but I don't want them in the White House so I'm not sure why that became a real reason to vote for someone.

Now people are talking about how Hillary's tearing up played a pivotal role in NH. Are you kidding me? People really changed their opinion on whether or not to vote for Hillary based on that? Clinton has been in the spotlight for 15 years. She's been running for the presidency for 2 years. How can people's opinion of her be changed by a tear?

I certainly understand why people would vote for Hillary, but I don't understand deciding to vote for her because she can get emotional.

The tearing up moment was supposed to be a window into her humanity. What does that really mean? If you didn't like her before, how the heck did that change it?