http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto051120081526533438&page=2

Would you like to know what is causing Obama problems in many areas? Here’s the results of interviewing Democrats at a recent Clinton rally in WV. I hope that even people this ignorant can be better informed before November, but unfortunately that depends in large part on whether the MSM plays along with the disinformation campaigns being waged or if instead they decide to actually educate the public on the facts.

“Most people questioned said they mistrusted Mr Obama because of doubts about his patriotism and “values”, stemming from his cosmopolitan background, his exotic name and the controversy surrounding “anti-American” sermons by Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor. Several people said they believed he was a Muslim – an unfounded rumour that has circulated on the internet for months – despite the contradiction with his 20-year membership of Mr Wright’s church in Chicago. Others mentioned his refusal to wear a Stars and Stripes badge and controversial remarks by his wife, Mich­elle, who des­cribed America as “mean” and implied that she had never been proud of the US until her husband ran for president.”

[A]s I see it, this year, the will of the voters is going to mean less than the power struggle going on within the Beltway Dems–aided and abetted by some in the blogosphere. The Mountain States are seen by these “new coalition” Dems as representing the best opportunity to counter the Southern Strategy of the Repubs.

As best I can tell, there are many in the Dem party who would like to write off the South entirely as an electoral strategy. This would mean being able to throw out the influence of the Carters, the Gores and the Clintons. Of course, they can’t do this without replacement states to make up the votes. What they’re hoping is that they can cobble together enough Libertarians in the Mountain States and the border states, such as Virginia and Missouri, to re-draw the electoral map. Obama is the candidate that they chose to draw these voters into the Dem fold.

The problem is that the big electoral votes are still in states where the voter demographics favor Clinton. IMO, the neo-Libertarians will do anything to stop Clinton in order to execute the first part of their strategy–including taking a loss in the GE, as long as they think they can pick up the congressional races. They’re trying to prove a point here, IMO, whether or not it means winning back the White House. There’s also a problem in that Libertarians are not Democrats, so we are seeing a fight not just for votes but for values. . . .

My guess is that they believe it’s now or never, and that due to the state of the economy, the Iraq war/occupation and Bush’s approval ratings, this is the time for the coup.

BTW, I do believe it is an attempt at an internal coup. IMO, the comments by Brazile were a slip-up in her anger–we weren’t supposed to know that we were being told to go to the back of the bus and stay there, at least not until November. However, now that the plan is out there, you have people like Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller extolling the virtues of the new, neo-Libertarian party, formerly known as the Democrats. Maybe they think we’ll change our minds once they tell us how wonderful everything is going to be under the new order. It’s Animal Farm redux, best I can tell.

Sort of like a bunch of home invaders playing “win the remote” round the TV, ya know? Not hard to play, especially when you don’t have to clean up after yourself. Mom will do that…

However, I have been developing a real dislike of Hillary, partly because of the reminders of what happened in the 90s, and partly because of how she’s acting now.

This post, of course, does not come from the Clinton campaign. It really seems to come from the One Percent Campaign, the perennial party of whatever name that points out during each election that none of the candidates other than their own are perfect. Which turns out to be your basic explanation of why the One Percent Campaign never gets more than one percent of the vote.

The post challenges us to think about what constitutes principle. I don’t know much about Hillary’s principles. I’ve read about pardons and Hillary’s brothers, but it seems that in some respects Hillary has 8 years of experience as a sort of shadow-president, and in other cases she was totally uninvolved.

Well, if that is principles, I can’t imagine too many candidates don’t have ‘em.

Until then if all you can do is grasp at straws and make believe the man who is beating her is somehow a lesser being … well have at it. Even though I don’t truly understand the need for this, I still hope it helps you bring closure somehow.

* While [Obama] said the Iraq war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences,” he was also careful to emphasize that there were times when military intervention was necessary. *

So he got it exactly right in considering the consequences of the invasion, and actually spoke out against it when it was by no means politically safe to do so, particularly for one with national aspirations. As opposed to, y’know, actually VOTING FOR THE F***ING WAR. Just a sliiiight differencce there, no?

that doesn’t mean he wasn’t really opposed to the iraq invasion, or that he wasn’t taking a real risk in speaking out against it in 2002. it does mean that obama was worried about stuff beyond his feelings of the war, but that doesn’t make his feelings less genuine. nor does it take away from his courage in speaking out against the war at a time that people were regularly vilified for it.

it’s terrible to have a leader that considers all the ramifications of a decision–including the political ramifications– and then makes the right decision as opposed to a leader that considers all the ramifications and then makes the safe, WRONG decision.

again, is this really the best you can do?

obama considers all sides, including political ramifications, and then makes the right choices, as opposed to hrc, who seems to only decide based on political winds and defaults to the wrong position?

do you really want to compare the war votes/positions of hrc and obama?

it’s a loser for you.

I guess you’re still in denial.