Its not clinton who said "CHange"or "Yes we can". or "ideas go to washigton to die" or "bringing together people".

You may want to look over her many campaign slogans before asserting that.

A non-politician politician. Hillary never did. And now many are seeing that he is not a saint and is more of a politician-politician.

Again look at her campaign - go back and listen to the debates.

And the same logic can be applied to her Bosnia visit and all the other foreign policy experience. Its about being "comparative" to others candidates experience and not in absolute. After all she was not the president which is obvious.

Actually it was a flat out lie. not once, not twice - but three times.

The reason why i do not consider a lie or a credibility issue is that she has actually been to Bosnia. And hence exaggeration.

so if your kids came up to you - lied about something - more than once, (recall her "That is what happened." - emphasis on period). would you then say - oh kids - your just exaggerating. Please.

It was the sense that i got from debates. Besides, using "comparative" analysis, she has never voted 100 plus presents ( Neither yes or no as Obama did in Illinois senate.)

Are you trying to assert his being accountable to voters far more than she has? or are you trying to say he spent more pork (well documented that she spent more).

Appropriate

Agreed. Elections are comparative. That is the point I am making as well. Comparative to what the person says and does. Comparative to the competition. Hillary never said "ideas goto die" or "Old politics". It was obama. so the onus is on him. Not on Hillary. Because he said new kind of politics. Not hillary. So its both comparative and absolute with the difference that the subject is obama himself.

And the same logic can be applied to her Bosnia visit and all the other foreign policy experience. Its about being "comparative" to others candidates experience and not in absolute. After all she was not the president which is obvious.

95% of the positions on the issues are same. And its very hard for me to believe that Obama has the depth or exposure that clinton has when it comes to policy and issues.  It was the sense that i got from debates. Besides, using "comparative" analysis, she has never voted 100 plus presents ( Neither yes or no as Obama did in Illinois senate.)

I do take back the word always. Sorry about that. I change " A substantial majority" and "mostly" instead of "always."

BTW, your claim that Obama supporters "always" avoid talking about issues is flatly false.  I did a 2-hour poligazette radio session to prove it.  You can listen to it in the archives if you care about actually being accurate.

As far as bias goes, its amazing to watch almost all the media which include CNN, MSNBC, Washingtonpost, NYtimes and many others just drooling over obama. The same guys who complained about Bush white house of preferential treatment. The sad thing is there is no objective approach what so ever.

And its sad to see Obama’s supporters obsessiveness to point out clinton is so mean, political or what ever. The point is thats how politicians are. Its not clinton who said "CHange"or "Yes we can". or "ideas go to washigton to die" or "bringing together people".

I think obama’s supporters need to understand that if they believe they have a better candidate, they should do so based on their candidate. Not because they think other candidate is worst. If they do, there is no change or "yes we can" or "Old washington politics". Its the same old politics.

And another sad thing is that offlate Obama supporters are acting the same way many say Bush administration was doing. While many say hillary is arrogant with a sense of entitlement, if anyone pays attention, its Obama who has the issue. They also dont seem to be worried about Democratic party at all what so ever.

Either way, I used to support and have great respect for Obama. Because i did believe him to be different. But that was then. Now I think he is more of a politician then Hillary or Bill for that matter ever can be or ever have been. Thats sad. Because its not new politics.  Its  actually worst then the old politics.  Would have been great with  the republicans.  If only there was  something good  unfortunately.

No I don’t: I realize she’s a liar and hypocrite, and everyone knows that. To write about it, then, is completely useless.

I would say it would be keeping a level playing field.

That’s a cheap shot and… despite what Republican operatives have told you,  the records actually show that she was involved in some important issues; no, not as much as she said, but still more than McCain et al. would want you to believe.

You would be my Republican operative Michael.  Yours is the only political blog I read.  did you somehow miss seeing Chelsey in the news video?  Somehow miss her repeating that "That’s what happened"?  And somehow missing the continual reports of - that didn’t happen?

My focus on this side of Obama is because he himself and all too many of his supporters act as if he’s different. My posts, then, are aimed at showing that he’s not.What can you do with Clinton? "She’s a hypocrite, see that?"

Different standards are different standards.

Again, I don’t care whether you think that’s fair or unfair, it’s just how it works, also because you have to select stories to write about; personal biases obviously play a role in that process.

And that is being intellectually dishonest.

Exactly, that’s because it’s Clinton, and you give free passes to Clinton.

No I don’t: I realize she’s a liar and hypocrite, and everyone knows that. To write about it, then, is completely useless.

Break it down, lets see - her "experience?"  was a lie.  Remember you being so adamant that she protected Chelsey?  Apparently not enough to keep her out of a war zone where she had to "run" under sniper fire.

That’s a cheap shot and… despite what Republican operatives have told you,  the records actually show that she was involved in some important issues; no, not as much as she said, but still more than McCain et al. would want you to believe.

If it were Obama, you would have been 5 posts into exposing it.

And that’s a shame.

My focus on this side of Obama is because he himself and all too many of his supporters act as if he’s different. My posts, then, are aimed at showing that he’s not.

What can you do with Clinton? "She’s a hypocrite, see that?"

"So what else is new?"

Again, I don’t care whether you think that’s fair or unfair, it’s just how it works, also because you have to select stories to write about; personal biases obviously play a role in that process.

And if you don’t like it, don’t read the posts I write.

And this is the end of this debate. Now debate the post.

As for the Bosnia thing; didn’t Claudia write about that one? And - personally I just didn’t find it interesting enough to write about.

Exactly, that’s because it’s Clinton, and you give free passes to Clinton.

Break it down, lets see - her "experience?"  was a lie.  Remember you being so adamant that she protected Chelsey?  Apparently not enough to keep her out of a war zone where she had to "run" under sniper fire.

Too Dangerous?  Send the first lady - bravo!  - farce.  The list goes on - and it is just one single example.

If it were Obama, you would have been 5 posts into exposing it.

And that’s a shame.

And - personally I just didn’t find it interesting enough to write about. If it was Obama? Perhaps, but he’s presented as some kind of Saintlike new politician, whereas he’s not. So that’s why I may have written about it if it was him; whereas with Clinton I’m thinking to myself "is this news? Of course she, umh, embellishes her memory. They all do."

Understand? (you can still think i should write about it, but then again; i decide what i write about ;)).

People see her for what she is.  And that is nothing shining.