Ok. I get it. Obama campaign wants to remind the voters that Hillary is "disingenuous', "not trust-worthy", "dishonest" and "secretive'. In other words, she is a monster who constantly lies. Whenever she misspeaks or exaggerates (personally I can hardly find any politician who does not do that but who cares?), she is a liar. Whenever she takes some time to release information (tax, schedule...whatever), she is certainly hiding something. In other words, again, she is a monster who just can not or will not tell you the truth.

The talking points are so pervasive that Obama supporters (mostly media) apparently can not write or speak without using these keywords: "disingenuous", "dishonest', "not-trustworthy" or "lie".  

However, the more serious problem is many Obama supporters really BELIEVE Obama campaign's talking points. And they DO hate Hillary because they LOVE Obama and his campaign. Obama supporters do not question the validity of these claims. Why? Because they are in a 'WAR" against a monster who will destroy our party, our country and, of course, our WORLD!

I fear that Obama and his campaign crossed the line. They did not only make so many Hillary supporters angry and feel betrayed by their own party but also they transformed their supporters into Hillary haters. Obama and his campaign are feeding the hate because they think the Democratic nomination automatically means the presidency in 2008. As a Hillary supporter, I do not think so any more. Whoever becomes our nominee, he or she will have a tough fight with McCain. Thanks to Obama and his campaign, Dems will not be unified under either candidate. Obama supporters hate Hillary because they think she is a monster. Hillary supporters hate Obama because Obama made his supporters believe Hillary is a monster.

Obama claimed that he would be a true uniter of the country. I believed him once. Now, I realize that I should never ever trust anybody in politics who claims to be the uniter. Just like GWB, Obama is far from being a uniter in his actions.

I can tolerate anything in this primary. Incredibly ineffective DNC, just stupid delegate system, weird caucuses, petty attacks on each other's 'electability'...etc.

BUT

I will not tolerate any attacks on CHARACTER of each candidate! Personal attacks are terrible not just because you are damaging potential supports from your opponent whom you need to win the GE but also because there is NO WAY the opponent can reasonably respond the attack. If one says "you are not trustworthy" about you, how can you respond that? No I am not? It is why people call attacks on characters as "smear campaign'. It does not help constructive debate on policies. It does not generate any "good" support for the party. It will just give a lot of sexy headlines for the MSM and drive away a lot of voters.

In the article in ABCNEWS, Obama states that "Hillary is not seen as trustworthy by the American people". What is going on? Does Obama really want Hillary to bring up HIS issues with being trustworthy in terms of his 20 year relation with Rev. Wrights? Is Obama trustworthy after lies after lies about his relation with Rezko? Give me a break. More important, where is politics of hope? Didn't he say he will be so different from so-called 'Washington" politics?

Obama suprises me everyday with how low he can go to win the nomination, not necessarily the general election. If he thinks of the general election and the future of the party, there is NO way he could launch this type of dirty attacks. I remember that he snubbed on Hillary on the day he received wonderful endorsements from the Kennedys. He received another wonderful endorsement from Bill Richardson today who claims that Obama represents New Politics. Yet, Obama launched the most negative attack against Hillary. Frankly I found nothing new about Obama's tactic. It is just what Rove used against Gore and Kerry. Claim your opponent as dishonest and not trustworthy. Who knows? You might win the election! Great job, Senator Obama. You just got an A+ from Rove.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/ story?id=4495865&page=1

I do not agree with any attempt to minimize the importance of racial justice in this country. I understand that racism is everywhere and the Democratic Party and its supporters would not tolerate any racism. However, I do not agree with any unfair, inconsistent, political attempts to portray someone as victim of racism or racist. When do we know someone is playing race card? It is when someone decides to cherry-pick racism or racial offence to galvanize political/economic/social gains. Let me give you an example.

Why there is so much anger against Geraldine Ferraro but none toward Orlando Patterson's outrageous hit piece on NY Times? If Ferraro has to be denounced because of what she thinks, doesn't Orlando Patterson deserve some criticism, too? Orlando Patterson literally portrayed Hillary as racist implying that her 3 am call ad is all about subtle racial messages. Ferraro thinks Obama is successful because he is black. Patterson thinks Hillary's ad has racist sub-messeage why? Obviously because she is white. Both made their comments based on a candidate's race. One receives enormous criticism while the other enjoys relatively "sane" responses. What is going on? While Ferraro receives special treatments and outrage from Obama's camp, what happened to Republican Congressman, Steve King? Of course, we all were outraged but certainly Obama camp does not need to issue a special memo to ask McCain to denounce him. Why? Why Ferraro's comments seem to receivemore attention from Obama's camp than King's?

I am Latino. I am neither white nor black. I am just "other". For "others", the politic of race (or race card) is ridiculous and unfair. If you want to denounce racism, you need to denounce EVERY racism.  You can not pick and choose. If you really want to stand up against racism, you can not judge people based on race. If you are outraged by Ferraro's comments, you can not praise Patterson. I heard so many commentators and so-called Obama supporters say "Latinos do not support Obama because they are racist" or "Asians do not support Obama because they are racist'. If you are really working for racial justice, you need to know that you should not spread stereotypes and prejudice against other racial groups. Let me tell you something. Racial issues should not be monopolized by a political camp or a racial group. Racial issues are too important to be a tool to win the nomination of a political party. Whenever someone plays race card unfairly for one's own political gain, the rest of racial minorities need to pay the price.

Yes. Obama suffers and will suffer in the political process because he is black. It is very important to stand up and fight against racism against Obama. However, there is difference between fighting against racism and using race card. When do we know someone is just using race card? You know it is just a race card when that someone does not stand up against EVERY racial remark and encourages supporters to call one's opponent racist.

Today's news for me is not Obama's new costume or new CBS poll numbers. It is the news on inflation. Apparently inflation at the wholesale level jumped 1 percent in January. It's highest in 26 years. 1% in a MONTH!

People talk about recessions and how the economy is going to be tougher in coming years (if not decades) for the US. So far Obama used the economic crisis to point out the obvious reason for it, Bush. However, blaming Bush does not solve the problem. Hope? I don't think so. Frankly, in the global market, they couldn't care less whether the US is hopeful or not. At the end of the day, I think economy will be the issue in the general election. It could be great for the Dem. if we elect Hillary not Obama. I am cautiously predicting that Obama might loose the debate over economy to McCain. Here is a glimpse of how little the market care about "HOPE" and...Obama.

I guess people in Blogsphere do not watch any financial channels because I can not recall a single occasion when people became outraged by comments made in CNBC or Bloomberg News. They have been effectively dismissing BOTH Clinton and Obama for a while. Of course, Hillary is the main target, though.

It is irony to see the difference between CNBC and MSNBC. While MSNBC has been Obamania for months, CNBC constantly has laughed at him. Honestly I think they DO NOT believe that OBAMA could win the general election. He is a laughing stock over there. Unfortunately I think CNBC is closer to the true NBC spirit, a media outlet owned by a big corporation. Then why financial channels dismiss Obama? because they can easily argue that he does not have any plan or experience big enough to handle this nation's terrible economy. They at least feel Hillary as a threat but Obama? They are about to call him Obambi.

The other day at Kudlow & Company, one panellist talked about the most possible scenario; McCain as president with the Congress dominated by the democrats. I was puzzled by how confident they were. Yes. They are mostly conservatives. Yes, they are pro-corporations. Yes. I know. Unfortunately, THEY are the voice of the corporate America. If Obama had been scrutinized by the media and his so-called momentum is built on his plans not on personalities, I would laugh at CNBC back. However, because of the discrepancy between MSNBC and CNBC, I can not stop thinking that all the hype for Obama is carefully scripted.  

One more interesting note, they think the surge of Obama is not about Obama. It is all about anti-Hillary. And they pointed out Hillary is THE liberal. I guess they know better than many democrats. What an irony. Watch yourself.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=65 1246405

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=66 4042559

I was so happy to see this clip. Yes! Deal with it. Biches get stuff done!

I am one of those who were leaning toward Hillary. But I became a strong supporter of Hillary after witnessing unbearably biased media coverage of the primaries. Here are the worst media/blog in the world which forced me to be a passionate supporter of Hillary.

1. Huffington Post:

I used to visit this site at least twice a day. Now, I refuse to click even a link to Huffington Post. This site is not just biased. It is toxic. Just look at today's headline. Who on the earth would put the intrade prediction market on the headline? Did Huffington Post report the latest Gallup poll result? Of course not! This site is just shameless. It does not even deserve any analysis. So, I will declare Huffington Post as a garbage and move.

2. MSNBC:

It is well known that MSNBC has shown incredibly animosity against Hillary. This animosity is actually helping Obama. I do not think MSNBC will be pro-Obama in GE. After the primaries, McCain is the guy. Among all the talking heads in MSNBC, Keith Olbermann beats everyone including Chris Matthews. Why? Because Keith became so personally passionate about Obama, he could not even contain his anger (??) when Chris Matthws tried to talk about Hillary's Floria results. Very funny. Other talking heads at MSNBC play the political game and deliver talking points (with passion I guess). Keith? He seems to be a true Obamanic and the worst journalist (is he even a journalist?) at MSNBC. I feel sorry for him. How naive.

3. Talking Points Memo:

Well. You might be surprised that Talking Points Memo beat Dailykos. The reason is quite simple. Dailykos became a horrible site. But at least the managers/editors there admit that they favor Obama. Of course, it does not justify all the bigotry, hatred, and destruction that the site is creating for the party. But at least they are honest and the readers are "warned". But Talking Points Memo is different. It pretends to be neutral. It constantly feeds you with the idea that Josh Marshall or his report is neutral. Really? Look at its coverage on fundraising.

"I've been checking in on the Obama counter that's measuring the money his campaign has taken in since the close of the polls -- now at $5.8 million. And it occurs to me that he can now afford to hire Mark Penn."

Well. Very neutral.

Note that who was the first blogger to spread the infamous "rumor" about Hillary's racialized robocalls in LA, Talking Points Memo. Sometimes, I suspect he might receive Taking Points Memo directly from Obama camp. Not surprising. The site was quite effective to spread talking points memo from Kerry's camp to destroy Dean. Life is full of irony. I did not dream to see a day when Kerry and Dean actually join their force together.

4. Daily Kos

My feeling for this site is ambivalent. I think Hillary made a major mistake underestimating the importance of the internet. This crazy political enthusiasm in the internet will die down soon. Other countries also experienced similar phenomenon and it seems to be just one time deal in many cases. However, the internet can be powerful at least once. The power of daily kos and other "liberal" blogs is overrated but still they can fire up the base and, more important, they can spread rumors without paying any penalty. Daily Kos became a rumor mill. It can spread horrible rumors and negative attacks without causing any political damage to Obama. I think it is partially Hillary's fault. She should have organized a more effective internet team as Obama did.

We will see how much supports Daily Kos will generate to the party. So far, according to cases from other countries, it will be rather minimal.

These are the 4 worst media/blogs in the world for me and I decided to boycott them. I think it is time for Hillary supporters stand up against MSM and biased blogs. As someone noted, Hillary's enemy is indeed the media.

Some pundits(including Tim Russell at MSNBC) try to distort the exit poll results to minimize the impact of Hillary's victory saying that recent events (SC victory for Obama, so-called negative campaigning by Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy's endorsement...etc.) have created some difference because Obama and Clinton "ties" among those who DECIDE thier choice recently.

Let me advise you to read carefully the exit polls unless you just want to distort the truth like MSNBC.

The poll question was "When Did You Decide Who To Vote For?" not "when did you vote?". About 40% said they decided within last Month and Obama got about 3-5% more than Hillary in this category except for those who decided today. (As you can see, Hillary got 4% more from those who decided today.)

The result for this question only tells you that Obama's support was not there in Florida and formed recently. You can also tell that, as most of exit polls in other states tell you, Obama's support is not as extremely loyal and solid as portrayed in the media. Those who support Obama just made their mind in last month possibly because he got constantly favorable media coverage from the MSM.

On the other hand, Hillary' support seems very solid. They decided to vote for her months before and did not change their mind. They heard all the stories about negative campaigning, they watched "inspirational" Ted Kennedy's endorsement and they showed up to vote for Hillary TODAY!

The question of when did you DECIDE who to vote for would measure "loyalty" not "growing popularity". You can ignore absenttees saying that they did not have a chance to change their mind. That can make sense. If I work for Obama, actually this result can be troubling because it might imply that Obama's support can be altered relatively easily.

I do not care whether Hillary wins or not that much because I think both will be acceptable to beat Republicans. But I just do not understand this crazy media bias against Hillary, which almost make me want to support her.

See the exit poll with your own eyes. DO NOT BELIEVE anything MSNBC tells you about the exit poll.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#FLDEM