Now we’re faced with the Clinton v. Obama redux of Humphrey and JFK. Obama may have intended to appear to be the anti-war RFK, but didn’t seem to really take to that position.

Are Clinton and Obama also pro-war attitude candidates representing the early-’60s positions? They seem to want to be there. Clinton may even be representing the Goldwater friendliness-toward-Arizona’s-McCain position. Note: for those who don’t know Goldwater was also from Arizona.

Where’s the post-war attittude?

Clinton: “get ready for the next war”
Obama: “we’ll nuke Pakistan”

Edwards: “We’ll get out of Iraq except for enough troops to defend the embassy.”

It’s time to get over the war and the ’60s and move on. Remember, if we just get to the late ’60s there is always the Nixonian era to come and we really don’t want to have to go through that, do we.

Who can shift our attention to *today* instead of forcing us to relive the divisiveness of the 1960s? Somehow I don’t see Obama uniting us, despite saying he’s a Uniter.

America needs Leadership, not all this divisive garbage. C’mon everybody, let’s get with it.

I personally would much prefer a Commander-in-Chief who was against perpetual warfare. In which case Obama has the best credentials.

What was it Obama said about Pakistan? Was it that he would use tactical nukes?

Did Obama vote to continue funding the Iraq war?

Tell me again how Obama is all hippy cool?

The comment the aide made in Scotland was stupid and uncalled for. And, BTW Sen. Obama’s campaign has rightfully apologized and distanced themselves from the remark.

Really? He apologized? That would be a first, wouldn’t it?

Cite?

I am not making excuses for Clinton. I am just questioning the competency of the Obama campaign staff. I mean, conceding the Monster vote to the opposition this early in the race is just plain sloppy.

Teh funny!

Hey, Clinton gets the zombie vote and Obama gets the cultie vote, so who *should* get the ‘monster’ vote?

She’s making a naked grab to Reagan Democrats.

I think it’s great that Dems might pull those folks back to our side, so we can win. But, hasn’t it been Obama who has depended most on Independents and Republicans to get this far? I don’t think you can take those votes and then complain that Hillary is doing something unseemly.

Frankly I’m happy to see a candidate scrap for every vote possible. I only wish she had fought Obama last summer and fall when it mattered much more.

Edwards rightly knocked Clinton out of the race during and after Iowa. She should’ve stayed knocked out, but had money and like a zombie just kept going.

Now we’re stuck with zombie Hillary and cult of Cool-Aid Obama and their crazed supporters. I’m growing less fond of Hillary’s Republican-look campaign and Obama’s passive-aggressiveness as time goes on.

Please, somebody tell me again, what was wrong with John Edwards?

In response to nonplussed @ 31

It’s a shame that neither candidate will deign to answer these questions.

The bigger problem is they don’t get asked.

No, that’s just the MSM doing their control-the-process shtick.

It’s really up to the candidates to inform the electorate. If a candidate just lets the media control the questioning and areas of interest which are discussed it’s because the candidate is happy to do that and isn’t trying to lead the discussion or to really assist the electorate. It just shows they aren’t really leaders.

Obama has dibs on appointing Crazy Joey to SCOTUS.

It’s the bi-partisan way to go doncha know!

I saw that, Abrams really boxed her in without being rude.

Her entire argument was representative democracy (she being the all knowing elected leader) – but then finally admitted that she would not pledge to vote the way her district did.

She also totally had no response for if her role as a Super Delegate was in any way different than her role as Congress person. That is to say is it OK to back-room deal for OH in order to support one or the other candidates.

Made me sick to see yet another argument with a total lack of logic.