The Obama campaign is attacking Senator Clinton on the basis that the money she has raised from lobbyists makes her a tool of special interests rather than a representative of the people.  (link) What they are failing to mention in this new attack is their own effort to carefully conceal the money they have raised through lobbyists.  About a year ago The Hill revealed the Obama campaign's plan to raise money through lobbyists by having the lobbyists work as bundlers rather than donating money themselves. (link)  

It has nothing to do with traffic.  It has everything to do with respect.  When those who should be treating you as a partner withing the Democratic Party, or any other partnership, refuse to show you respect and are continually abusive, moving on is the most sane thing one can do.  

Now what does this mean in terms of the Democratic Party?  Some of those who have drawn attention to the strike have agendas that are not helpful to the Democratic Party.  Republican operatives are gleefully talking about the division within the Democratic Party.  But those of us who are striking from dKos want to point out that we are loyal Democrats and that when the primary is over the party will again be united.

A lot of people who now say Obama has better judgment on Iraq are probably hoping we don't find out what they said in 2004 and earlier.  John Kerry is the most obvious one who voted for the AUMF before he endorsed someone who wasn't even in the Senate at the time and never saw the intel.  Chris Dodd is another.   In fact, every  Senator in office in 2002 who has run for president since voted for the AUMF.  That's the main reason I know Obama would have voted for it too.  It is clear he is always wanted to run for president.  And former Senator Daschle, now an Obama supporter, also voted for it.

Here is Obama on Friday telling Anderson Cooper that he didn't hear anything like this when he was in church and that if he had have he might have walked out:

Video

Famous blog owner and author:

"But I could deal with all of that, really, if Clinton was headed toward victory," XXX writes. "I see this as a long-term movement, and I've always expected setbacks along the way. Clinton isn't the most horrible person in the world. She's actually quite nice, despite all her flaws, and would make a fine enough president. If she was winning. But she's not, and that's the rub.

"First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate. She knows this.

Donna Brazile said on This Week that Jeremiah Wright is a moderate among black ministers.  He is not.  And Barack Obama has known this the whole time he has known Reverend Wright.  Wright was so radical that he could not get a job at any Baptist Church. (link):

To me this whole argument over the NIE is a perfect encapsulation of the differences between the two candidates.  What I find amusing is that the same people who are criticizing Senator Clinton for not reading the NIE are perfectly willing to accept that Senator Obama made his decision without reading the NIE, or receiving any briefing.  If Senator Obama didn't have to read the NIE to validate his judgment, then why is it that Senator Clinton is a traitor and murderer, according to comments on various blogs, for not reading the NIE?  (h/t to Eriposte for an excellent discussion of that very issue here)

The political world is buzzing over Senator Clinton's recent 3am red phone ad and Barack Obama's lightspeed response ad.  Missing from all this buzz is the fact that Senator Obama's ad depends on several carefully crafted lies.

Lie number 1: Foreign Policy Experience doesn't matter

Supporters of Senator Obama will probably respond that what Senator Obama is really saying is that his good judgment is more important than his foreign policy inexperience or Senator Clinton's superior Foreign Policy experience.