Clinton and Obama: making way for Edwards? Clark? Gore? Somebody?

[frogcycle]

(frogcycle dons flamesuit)

What was, I thought, a minor slip in the nuance by Obama in answering the question with a flat "yes" has now been spun up into fricking WWIII.

I am thoroughly disgusted by both of them, and their campaign people.

This escalation of a war of words built on little or no difference in their actual positions but an unfortunate phraseology by Obama "under the lights" is gutter politics at its worst. I would expect it from the pugs; am surprised (silly me) at it from them.

The fact is, Obama answered spontaneously and unthinkingly, in my opinion. But as he said later, he did not mean he would invite them all to tea. What I suspect got by him onstage under the lights was the commit to meet all of them in the first year. He responded in concept to the idea of willingness to have a dialogue, using the analogy of Reagan meeting with the Soviet leaders. So the "gotcha" of the phraseology got him. By the way, I am NOT a big Obama fan, not looking to make excuses.

But much like the piling on when Kerry botched a joke (anybody remember a certain New York Senator in that one?) Clinton says he is naive and inexperienced blah blah blah. She won on points by giving a better answer Mon. night. Now she is losing, in my estimation, by milking it. And Obama comes out today and calls her bush/cheney light!?! Whats up with that? He is trying to twist what she said into the equivalent of bush's attitude toward diplomacy (something only weaklings do).

I watched their "people" on both Hardball and Blitzer this evening. They were trying to outshout each other, stepping all over each other, introducing every sound bite they could think of - it might as well have been coultergeist or hannity duking it out with rosie o'donnell. This has now turned really ugly, and I predict they both will lose from it.

John Edwards must be smiling big time.