Is he a latte sipping wimp or is he a machiavellian Ken Starr?

[tularetom]

I wish the clinton people would make up their minds about how they want to characterize Obama. It all gets a bit confusing to us dummies that vote.

First they accuse him of naively wanting to sing kumbaiya with terrorists and the next thing you know he's become a manipulative sneaky politician who plays games with Canada over NAFTA.

They can't have it both ways. It's making them look a bit desperate and hillarity a little deranged.

And it's gonna make a lot of people not want to vote for her if by some sneaky trick she becomes the nominee.

[0007]

1. It does indeed make one wonder.

BTW, I love the photo you have at the bottom of your post

[CoffeeCat]

2. Barack Obama is whatever will destroy him...

...the most efficiently and quickly.

Look for more Clinton-generated verbal eviscerations coming to a campaign near you!

[Pirate Smile]

3. He isn't qualified to be CiC but then she would make him VP - a position where the most

basic requirement is the ability to step in on a seconds notice and become CiC.

Yeah - they don't confuse things with contradictory spin, do they?

As I read somewhere yesterday, they excel at the audacity of audacity - but we aren't supposed to notice or point it out.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. They are looking

in the mirror and describing themselves.

[Not the Only One]

5. anything the Clinton attack machine can come up with

I'm expecting them to say Obama eats live kittens.

They will keep throwing things against the wall hoping they will stick. We as voters have to keep rejecting this nonsense.

[midnight]

6. I think the beauty of Ken Starr is that he is the wimp being

led by the machiavellian from Mayberry, or so they would want us to think....... But why do we care when we take the White House? Look both of the candidates are the same. Both are not perfect. We have to work with what we have. Let us start bringing together the best of both these two have to offer and show the difference that way?