Since mid-December, five out of six on-air evaluations of Senator Obama (84%) have been positive, while Senator Clinton’s coverage has been about evenly balanced (53% positive). Since Super Tuesday, however, Obama’s proportion of good press has dropped to 67%, his worst performance during any phase of the campaign, while Clinton’s coverage remained balanced (50% positive). For example, from the South Carolina primary (Jan 26) to Super Tuesday, a remarkable 96% of comments about Obama were positive.

was quoted from the report.

I’ll ask you again: why the heck should Obama go negative when the press has been doing the dirty work for him and polishing his halo at the same time?  From the latest Center for Media and Public Affairs from December 16, 2007 through February 19, 2008, 

Since mid-December, five out of six on-air evaluations of Senator Obama (84%) have been positive, while Senator Clinton’s coverage has been about evenly balanced (53% positive). Since Super Tuesday, however, Obama’s proportion of good press has dropped to 67%, his worst performance during any phase of the campaign, while Clinton’s coverage remained balanced (50% positive). For example, from the South Carolina primary (Jan 26) to Super Tuesday, a remarkable 96% of comments about Obama were positive.

It’s only really this past week when the press ya know, started to actually do their job rather than cheerlead for the Messiah of Hope and Changiness.  He’s many things, but he ain’t dumb.  Why get your hands dirty when others have been doing the job for you.

There is a weird shiftiness to Obama haters.  Whenever he does something wrong, they jump all over it (over and over and over) as an expression of the Real Obama and disavow ANY possibility that it may be circumstantial or distorted (i.e. the "plagiarism" non-scandal).  But whenever he does something right, they claim he is just doing it for political convenience. 

Wrong.  I don’t hate him.  He’s probably the most likeable candidate and really quite a remarkable man.  I just do not buy what he’s trying to sell.  I’ll think he’ll be just as partisan as Bush (who ran as a centrist –"compassionate conservative"– who was gonna "change" Washington), especially if the Dems retain control of both the Senate and the House.  And if people thought GOP dominance was bad, wait until the people that have so effed up their primaries and who actually believe that big government and statist policies are good, are in charge.  And even if he is sincere, it’s not he who will change Washington, but Washington who will change him.  So, that leaves his policies.  I think the substance (what little there actually is) of his policies will be disastrous for your country, especially as the US is heading towards recession, the boomers are about to retire and the geopolitical arena is so frought with risk and danger (an area where a POTUS really has the most influence and power), among other things. 

Furthermore, like Michael, I live in a country that has already tried many of the leftist policies that the Democrats are so eager to foist on America.  They don’t work, not for the price that you’re gonna have to pay, and most of us here in Quebec and Europe are trying to figure out how to undo them or at the very least, dilute them. 

Is she afraid the American people will find out that she and Bill have been raking in millions upon millions from their "public service"?  And is she also afraid that the public might learn that much of that money has been made in the Middle East?

Hillary decided on the "kitchen sink" strategy, not Obama.  Well, kitchen sinks can be thrown by more than one person.  It’s time for Obama to hurl as big a sink as he can lay his hands on.  Hillary wants to play the game  this way, fine.  She may regret it.

Being honest about one thing doesn’t automatically mean one’s honest about every other issue as well (NAFTA anyone?).

You see my point?

If he goes negative, then you will KNOW he is fake.

If he does not go negative, then you will merely accept that there is HOPE that he is not fake.

This does not seem like a fair set of standards.

the only thing voters will be able to differentiate them on is policy. Hence Hillary wins.

Right, I keep forgetting about all those devastating and detailed policy differences spelled out by the Clinton campaign and/or its supporters.

Oh wait. I haven’t seen any of those yet. Just personal attacks. And vague references to some “experience” she obtained while dramatically screwing up her only policy initiative as First Lady, while picking the decor for White House functions as First Lady, and while successfully pushing…let’s see…ZERO major pieces of legislation through in the Senate.

Never mind.

Obama haters really need to learn a fundamental lesson: Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.