Who wrote this hit piece? Does "Contributed by" mean the same thing as "Authored by?" The name 'Charles Lemos' comes up with very few hits, and most of those seem to have to do with a cook book. This 'piece of work' makes lots of accusations, refers to several media sources, but provides no links or reference dates. This doesn't seem very typical for OneGoodMove.

I like Edwards, and I hope that he accepts an Obama invite for the VP position. Nothing would please me more than an Obama Edwards ticket.

This is offensive Crap.

"the former President, one of the few heroes of the Democratic Party's recent past"

"the Obama camp has all the makings of a cult. Honestly you are like Scientologists."

Give me a break. Bill Clinton is stretching the acceptable limits of a presidents behavior. George bush senior rarely campaigned for Jr. Clinton for Gore. Carter for anybody (Despite a close relationship with Dean). It is not a traditional activity for a former president. Particularly in a primary.

And to say that because people are supporting Obama because of a "Cult like" following is such Hogwash. Feeling some excitement about a candidate, does not mean people are believing without reason.

Rezko is Clearly an Illinois political character that I would guess most Politicians have some relationship with. No big surprise that he was a contributer to the Clintons as well. How this is bigger then the Clinton fundraiser that was just convicted is beyond me.

It would be nice if we could keep the argument a bit more civil then this.

Edwards has his skeletons too.

I really like how you start and finish with throwin' Edwards a bone. It really takes away from what is otherwise a lame smear job.

"hello to the true Manchurian Candidate"

Wow, I haven't heard that one since Rove tried it out on McCain in 2000. Bravo!

Just like Rove, the Clintons are the pros went it comes to sleaze.

I appreciate the Clintons, this is politics. If my candidate isn't strong enough to trump the Clinton attack machine then he doesn't deserve the presidency. Let us get all this nonsense out about slumlords and supporting Reagan and coke-snorting and whatever other idiocies out now, so when the GOP says the same thing we can just tell them they're quoting Clinton lies.

But our country needs better, It wasn't intelligence and hope that got us where we are today, it was experience and political expediency.

Just one step beyond the comfort of the CW delusion, go to sfgate.com and look up the Obama roundtable of January 17th.

This is a person worth following.

Partisan politics, regardless of how much fun they are, are killing this country. It is the distraction the corporations need to continue rob us blind.

I will proudly knock on every door in my very red district this fall to make sure my anti-SCHIP, pro-wire-tapping Congressman gets the boot, but Obama is the only candidate that can inspire me to vote for president this year.

Obama '08

Maybe if this article was covered in links to research, or if I knew Mr. Lemos I would take it more to heart. Sounds like a lot of cultish, blog ranting to me. To many "Obama says X. OMG, no way that could be true." statements with out any facts to back it up, or completion of the idea.

This sounds like a crypto-clinton booster, not a pro-edwards booster.

Take your vote-denial somewhere else.

ditto on the lack of links to back up these statements.

Can't for the life of me see that Obama's positions are 'to the right of Edwards and Clinton' . . . huh?

and what of the aforementioned changes of position by Edwards on the bankruptcy bill and the China trade bill? I have huge admiration for Russ Feingold and take his advice more readily that someone who apparently is so emotionally attached to the idea of an Edwards presidency, that his/her (?) rhetoric seems just as cultish as any Scientologist.

Clinton was never my hero; he definitely fell into the 'lesser of two evils' category. No matter what side of the aisle they're on, they won't forget that he lied through his teeth, he gave us NAFTA and reduced welfare. What kind of Dem is that? Not a progressive one. Unfortunately for Hillary and feminists everywhere, Bill will inevitably be tied to her campaign and her potential presidency. When I vote for a first woman president, she will stand on her own merit and without the baggage of a questionable spouse to share the limelight. It's hard enough to run the campaign gauntlet as one person, damn near impossible to do it as two with their history.

"We are partisan and partisanship works." Oh, please. "Either way time is on our side." OH PLEASE!

John Edwards as a vice president? Been there, done that. Sorry.

More likely Obama's choice will be Richardson to pull in the Latino vote.

"the stink that is the rose of Obama'? Let's observe a modicum of civility here. Please.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498,00.html

I was supporting Edwards until I read this article.It shows that Edwards will be willing to do anything for power. Read the last page if you don't want to read the entire article.

By what standard is Edwards a "true progressive"? Giving speeches? Having something to do with mills and millworkers? The guy was not a liberal warrior in the Senate. If Obama gets nominated his liberal voting record is going to be used against him. With Hillary and Edwards it will be flip-flopping again.

Obama's message is not exactly "bipartisanship" in terms of compromise. It's bringing new people and some conservatives into a fundamentally liberal movement. Listen to the speeches sometime. He doesn't talk about compromises, he talks about making people hopeful and excited again. Hillary can't do that so she says it's dumb. But look at conservative commentators. They know Obama is death to everything they stand for and they can't help but like him. We hear that and we're so paranoid that we think he's a closet conservative. Problem is that there's zero evidence that he's anything other than a liberal. He is like Reagan--a guy who gets people to vote for him in spite of ideological differences.

If Obama were just bringing in independents and a few lonely Republicans, that would be one thing. But he's bringing completely new voters into the political process as well. The notion that he's shuffling the deck--rather than playing with the same hand we've had since 1994--isn't stupid or silly, it's borne out by the facts of the race so far.

The idea that McCain could win a general election is a joke. Polls mean nothing now, because people don't know what McCain in 2008 is like. Hint: He old, crazy, and pro-war. He stands the chance of a total meltdown, my friends, by November.

Real Clear Politics has Obama beating McCain in the general election.

Furthermore, McCain is an adulterer. Obama wins that debate easily. McCain will not electrify the Republican base, most of whom will stay at home on election day. The ONLY way the Republicans can win is if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton - the R. base comes out in droves, and McCain wins the independents.

Edwards is a TERRIBLE choice for VP. What exactly did he do for the ticket in 2004? Oh yeah, he got CREAMED in the debate against Dick Cheney. It was laughable.

Mr. Lemos - how is time on the side of the progressives? Do you have any data that suggests the progressives have created or are creating a sizable voting majority? I love it when far-left members of the Democratic party invoke Nader, the man responsible for President George W. Bush. Nader's ego and self-delusion in 2000 did more for GWB than the progressive cause.

As a hardcore Ron Paul supporter, I can tell you in all seriousness that "our side" wants Hillary to run. With Hillary we have a feasible shot as the 3rd party.

Obama scares me. I find his speeches to be excellent, and his charisma palpable. I see the potential for a 21st Century JFK, and a rebirth of liberalism.

I would vote for Obama. He doesn't represent my economic views, nor do I agree with his stance on gun control. Even so, this is the sort of "compromise candidate" I can go for.

Obama's supporters have chosen to vilify the former President

Yes, well Clinton and Edward supporters are vilifying Obama. That's what campaigns are all about.

one of the few heroes of the Democratic Party's recent past for their own political expediency.

Well, all candidates are working towards their own "political expediency". What's new there?

He's not a progressive. His appeal to independents basically demonstrates that

Well, without the independents, the Democrats lose the election!

If they were successful it was because they were partisan not bipartisan. They forced the other side to capitulate

Forced people to capitulate? What the hell does this mean? The U.S. voting public is roughly 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democrat and 1/3 Independent. (Although I realize that many self-described Independents aren't all that independent.

I happen to agree with you about Obama, but Read 77 is correct in asking for the links. Please post them so we know your sources.

Tanks,

GN

I once saw Michael Moore giving a speech in 2004 and someone in the crowd asked him if he would support Wesley Clark if he received the Democratic nomination. Moore immediately said yes, he would support any Democrat. The guy in the crowd started railing at Moore that Wesley Clark was a terrible person, unworthy of being President and how the country would be ruined if elected. Moore waited and responded, "This is why we're going to lose."

I'm not sure I'm going to vote Obama in a primary, I'm leaning elsewhere, but I find this article self-contradictory in at least it's first few ideas.

I agree that LBJ, FDR, and Reagan were partisans who pushed forward their parties ideals through the opposition. But what is it that made Bill Clinton "one of the few heroes of the Democratic Party's recent past"? He was bipartisan. Billl Clinton was a moderate. That's what the Democratic Leadership Council that he, Gore, and Lieberman founded before 1992 was about. "We're sick of losing presidential elections unless there's a Nixon scandal. Let's just be moderate and be in a position to do something."

This is why Obama - very rightly I believe - compares himself to Bill Clinton. He has broad appeal to the moderates, the "Reagan Democrats," the "Bill Clinton Republicans," which virtually guarantess - and THIS IS BIG FOR OBAMA SUPPORTERS - a huge voter turnout in a national election, which in turn will lead to electing more democrats locally. Every time there's huge turnout, Democrats tend to win their districts (generally speaking, of course. This is not likely true in Texas).

Besides, this is why Obama has such appeal. WE JUST HAD 8 YEARS OF THE MOST PARTISAN PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. This post seems to argue that what the country needs right now is a partisan who fights for the other side, the better side. Maybe it's true that that's what the country needs, but it's definately not what the country wants, and to disqualify Obama for the idea that he can bring people together is foolish. It's downright bad for the Democratic party to suggest such a thing. If you don't want a Republican in the Whitehouse, we should be ready to say we will support any nominee for the Democratic party, even if we have to hold our nose while doing it. Because anything else only helps put a Republican in office.

And let's stop pretending any Republican can beat any Democrat. Even McCain. A majority of the country is against the war. The Democrats are against the war. McCain is for the war. This is going to be very hard to sell in the general election. If you want video proof why no Republican can beat any Democrat, look up the Meet The Press video where John Kerry and John McCain debate the Iraq war. McCain speaks well for much of it, better than anyone else in the Republican party, and loses awfully. To a candidate who couldn't win the general election. I know the media needs a narrative, and issues will change between now and November, but as long as this war can't be won by armies - which it can't - McCain and any other Republican is, as John Kerry put it, "fucked, homey."

I'm aware that the previous paragraph underscores that there's no need to vote for Obama if we want a Dem to win the general. But I might not be voting for Obama. I just find all of that to be true.

So stop being such a fucking idealist if it means you can't compromise with anyone. That's not what made Bill Clinton great. That's not what would make John Edwards great - he'd have to compromise with people before he could push forward his populist agenda - and I mean if only with people in his own party. His whole "no compromise with the drug companies, etc." would still have to be backed by moderate Congressional Democrats and he would have to find a way to work with them. We've had 8 years of a President who gave said "it's my way or nothing." If we're really going to be progressive, we don't need to hear anymore talk like that - and I mean from voters.

Yeah, isn't Edwards' Claim that he can get southern rural whites? How is Obama getting independents somehow worse then Edwards getting what are largely republicans. And Hillary geting significant Republican women crossover.

This diatribe is just bad.

Wacky stuff. The person who wrote this is either a right-wing blogger, or (more likely) a Clinton campaigner. If the minority of the progressive wing starts voting for Edwards, then Clinton (whose husband spent more time in the middle than lines on streets) will likely take the nomination.

I'm not sure exactly why this piece would sway a progressive. But let's say it did, and the whole of the progressive partition of the left started voting for Edwards. 'Welcome to the general election Madam President Clinton' (who, if like her husband, would lead in a way to make any independent happy). Don't forget, Obama didn't vote for the war as did Clinton.

I am going to try to respond as best I can to the various comments. But first I am going to respond to Reed77’s comments. You’re right that President Clinton “is stretching the acceptable limits” of Presidential behaviour. As I hoped I noted we are in uncharted waters with the spouse of an ex-President running for office. It is unprecedented and most certainly awkward. I called him glib and perhaps I can say far worse as well. Some would argue that Bill Clinton is doing more than good and I wouldn’t disagree but I also feel that the Obama campaign is intentionally making the former President an issue. Like others in the Democratic Party, my suggestion to both of them is get on with the real issues and not debate the relevance of South Carolina. I hoped that I conveyed that both had valid points.

You also noted that Clinton did not campaign for Gore. That was Gore’s choice if I remember correctly.

I stand by the cult characterization of Obama supporters. Are all Obama’s supporters irrational? Absolutely not, but many are. Read the Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo and that will give you a level of the vitrol against the Clintons and the unabashed adoration of Obama. Today for example there is a blog by Nathan Gonzalez calling Univision’s coverage baised for the Clintons, not necessarily against Obama but decidedly pro-Clinton. Right or wrong, that “bias” reflects the sentiments of the Hispanic community. The Clintons are beloved by Hispanics save for the Cubans. My mother and her circle of friends, all immigrants from Spain or Latin America, simply like Bill Clinton and that translates into support for Mrs. Clinton. To me, that post seems an orchestration of a campaign to shout down any pro-Clinton statements by the media. I need only remind you that two long-serving analysts have been unceremoniously dumped by CNN after Obama complained of their coverage. I don’t find the Clintons trying to banish from the airwaves pro-Obama coverage.

To my knowledge Rekzo has not contributed to the Clintons’ campaigns. That photo of the Clintons with Rezkko was sent to the Today Show (by whom I do not know and I hate to cynical but I can only guess) was from a campaign event for Carol Mosley Braun from 1993. I will, however, acknowledge that so far Senator Obama does not stand accused of any wrong-doing and only I really am arguing that the appearance of impropriety should be examined closely before we hand the Republicans an issue that can destroy his candidacy.

My basic complaint is that criticism of the Clintons is fair game but that any criticism of Obama is out of bounds? If limit myself to policy, which I should from here on out, I urge you to look at the policy proposals on health care and on energy in particular but on others as well. Is it not a fair characterization that on policy the Clinton proposals and those by Edwards have more in common than those from Obama? Is it also not accurate to state that Obama’s proposals are more to the right than those of Clinton and Edwards?

You talk about civility. Fine. While Obama plays the saint, Clinton is mercilessly attacked and Edwards berated for not dropping out of the race (as if that would translate into additional support for Obama-it would likely go two-thirds Clinton one third Obama). My point is that his surrogates are doing exactly the same of which he accuses the Clintons. I don’t see how that is breaking “politics as usual.” It is more of the same. To date I represent an aberration from the Edwards camp, I am more willing to call him on his rhetoric and ask him to live up to what he is preaching.

Lastly what are Edwards’ skeletons? A $400 haircut and a large home? That he worked for a hedge fund or was a trial lawyer? I worked for Goldman Sachs and had a decade long career on Wall Street. Does somehow make me not a progressive? Does the fact that I too have a nice home in San Francisco disqualify my political sentiments? Or that I go to a day spa once a month somehow make me anything other that perhaps a little vain?

Charles Lemos San Francisco, CA

I can understand many sentiments of this piece.

I don't think we're in any need of more bipartisanship, either. And I don't get Obama's knack for it. I don't think Obama is particularly progressive.

Then: The Obama camp indeed vilifies the Clintons, and not in a very subtle manner. This is not very clever because a nominee Obama will need both Bill and Hillary in the fall.

I agree that "Billary" have brought some of it on themselves. But the Obama camp is always very quick to call any criticism "racist". Which is strategically unwise. For Obama, that is.

I want to win in November. And any of the three major candidates are worthy and capable of winning. But I truly think that the Obama camp engages in separating themselves from the two other camps. I'm tired of being called a "hillbot" only because I dare to point out that Obama lacks some substance.

So, Lemos might overplay his hand here. But he has at least one point: Obama is a candidate not a saviour. And the sooner some Democrats face that the better. Because the Republicans and most of all the media won't just sit there in awe..

This is a response to dende blogger:

Dende blogger Though I have always been a liberal as evidenced by my past picks for President, Paul Simon, Paul Tsongas and Bill Bradley, I also think that I have moved increasingly to left as the Bush years have worn on. In this assessment of myself, is it not fair to say that John Edwards too has moved to the left over the course of the Bush Presidency? In the end, you either have to take John Edwards or you don’t. I do. Perhaps your assessment of Obama as a new Reagan is correct as someone who “gets people to vote for him in spite of ideological differences.” His appeal to independents does demonstrate that. I’d still rather have an FDR. Ideological differences will still exist in Congress no matter who is elected President and how you overcome those is a pertinent question to ask. Obama touts compromise and reaching out. Edwards counsels that experience should make us wiser. I agree with Edwards wholeheartedly on this. Read my earlier letter on why it is naïve to believe that the GOP is simply going to roll over and acquiesce. My one caveat here is a 60+ majority in the Senate (or 61 if we count Lieberman). If Obama can deliver this, then there might little need to compromise. Still Obama’s proposals to me are more like band-aids where Edwards are more like surgery. I never suggested that McCain would win in November if Obama were the nominee. My comment is based on the fact that in the last debate , Obama got flustered and that McCain is a tough debater. I agree with you he borders on insanity. Still his statement on more wars to come while it sounds crazy is actually a fair point to make. I don't know if McCain is right but he isn't wrong per se. By this I mean that at some point Americans will have to make a choice. The American way of life can only be supported by taking the resources of others. How the US chooses to take those resources will determine if there are more wars or not. I am clearly in the camp that we shouldn’t usurp other people’s resources but others are not. In the end, I do believe that Obama is a great orator and if people believe that he is sincere in his message, he will likely win. I, however, find him a tad insincere. Only time will tell if I am wrong. To be blunt, the main campaign issue in the Fall will be the economy. On this the Democratic Party has a built-in strength. While Iraq matters to me and to many, unfortunately I am not sure that apart from Edwards and Ron Paul, that any candidates on both sides would extricate us from Iraq any time soon. That notion is depressing but I think correct.

Charles Lemos San Francisco, CA

Yeah, isn't Edwards' Claim that he can get southern rural whites? How is Obama getting independents somehow worse then Edwards getting what are largely republicans. And Hillary geting significant Republican women crossover.

This diatribe is just bad.

Yes. Both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Why was that? All three of the candidates need some crossover in order to win the general election.

It's interesting how most Democrats have now decided that they're supporting a particular candidate and are attacking the other two remaining candidates.

The Republicans will have no problem finding dirt on the Democratic candidate as the Democrats are doing a find job of this for them.

This diatribe is guilty of a lot of fallacies. Ad hominem attacks, strawmen, and personal incredulity come to mind.

Putting those aside, I have to agree with the other commenters. I just have to disagree with the content. I would like to take the motives at face value, so I don't want to give any credence to the idea of some conspiracy of it being planted by some Clinton surrogate.

But I do think that the author of this little piece does indeed harbor a bit too much animosity towards a particular candidate because of the popularity of said candidate. That is, I think they are reacting their perceived unwarranted popularity of the candidate and is therefore prejudiced against them. Of course I can be wrong, but that is my impression based off of the tone of the piece.

All three of the candidates need some crossover in order to win the general election.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Thaddeus hit the magic note: where are this guy's references? Not one footnote, not a single link? If you're going to make charges like these, comparing a man to the Mob, then you'd better have your ducks lined up. Until I see valid references, I don't believe a word of this poison. And guess what -- I'm for Edwards too. But I want him to win fair, not on the basis of shit-slinging.

This is a response to Marco who accuses me of being for Clinton and worse.

I an Edwards supporter but I must admit my frustration in seeing both the Clinton and Obama camps take do this tits for tats. My biggest criticism of the coverage is that while Clinton is attacked (it is damn if she does and damn if she doesn't) Obama seems to get a pass.

None of the candidates are sacrosanct. I really don't seeing a difference between them in the style of a campaign that are waging. Obama supporters cry holy murder when any criticism is leveled at their candidate. That's my main complaint.

The problem with any mere suggestion of criticism of Obama is that one gets slurred as a right-wing blogger. That is frankly nonsense. That's why I think Obama supporters as demonstrating cult-like qualities.

Not one Obama supporter noted that I also thought that he answered Clinton effectively. Balance is a problem. Few admit that he may have flaws.

I would rather not engage in diatribes and I am sorry if you believe I have. And so I will change my tact and focus less on Obama and more on Edwards.

So why Edwards. On issues to ranging to health care to energy to Iraq to waging a war on poverty, I agree with him on the necessity and the urgency of those matters. These are moral issues and Edwards is the only candidate who is making this connection.

The next four years are as much about doing and undoing. Edwards has been clear that there is a need to curtail the powers of the unitary executive to a degree that no other candidate has (Kucinich to be fair has as well).

But what impresses me most about Edwards is his life story. He is an American success story as much as people don't like hearing about his father in the mills. Few candidates have that sort of journey to tout. The first in his family to go to college. Those attributes distinguish John Edwards from the rest of the field.

Charles Lemos San Francisco, CA

This is really stupid. I hope that the blog owner (Norm?) is not endorsing this little tirade. I like John Edwards as much as the next guy. I like the fact that he is trying to win this race through his message without getting millions from special interests. I think he is a genuinely great person and would be a good president. But Obama is not an evil villain from a movie. There is not doubt, to me, that he is a sincere and honest person.

And though this is the point where many of you may disagree, I also don't consider the Republican candidates to be pure evil. I mean, they have morals. During the immigration debate, and I heard Huckabee talk about "not punishing children for their parent's behavior", I agreed fully. They're not immoral jerks or anything. When Romney was talking about how illegal immigrants are cheating the system that legal immigrants have to work so hard to pass through, there's nothing really wrong with that opinion at all. Of course I don't like certain other issues, but still, I don't go for this claim that certain people are the devil reincarnated.

This sh** is stupid.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear on this point because it seems to have overlooked.

I think both the Clinton camp and the Obama camp are engaging in wasteful and misspent energy. I wrote that this Punch & Judy show apparently wants to bludgeon the Democratic Party to death. Is a murder-suicide pact? I can't tell.

By this I mean with both Clinton and Obama murdering each other I have trouble discerning if they are not just committing joint suicide.

Most of my criticisms are leveled at both candidates and what surprises me always is that Clinton supporters accept fair criticism and Obama supporters don't. Obama supporters do not take criticism well. I should add that I do not believe that that is true of Obama himself.

While I raise questions about his dealings with Rezko, I should have also added that there is no evidence of any legal wrongdoing. I regret not making this important distintiction. The conduct may be on the up and up but it nonetheless does raise questions that I would want to have cleared up before Rezko goes to trial at the end of February. And so I urge Obama supporters to look carefully before there is any sense of buyers' remorse.

If you think I am doing him a disservice, I might argue that focusing on this questions now we won't have to come the Fall when the Republicans will do what it takes to win.

In my own defense I might add that I also noted that on my thoughts that Obama was insincere and more, I left room for improvement on that score. He may yet change my mind as these questions gain more clarity. On policy, however,I do not concur with Obama.

I did mean to be provocative but if my sarcasm does not play well, I apologize.

Call me an idiot or hold my argument poorly-thought out but please don't call me a right-winger blogger because that is offensive even over the anonymity of the Internet.

Charles Lemos San Francisco, CA

All three of the candidates need some crossover in order to win the general election.

I strongly disagree. 60-70% of this country is currently anti-war, including most moderates, independents, and the Ron Paul base within the GOP itself.

Speaking for myself, I will not for anyone who voted in favor of this war, right, left or middle.

Hillary with the Patriot Act will be just as bad as Bush with the Patriot Act. I only hope it doesn't take 6+ years to understand that.

What loses moderates and independents is NOT the anti-war stance. This is illogical and outrageous. Obama has already proven this false.

Hillary Clinton is the only chance the GOP has of winning in 2008. The ONLY thing that unifies the GOP after the loss of Bush's status is a common hatred of Hillary. As the primaries have shown, the GOP lacks a clear leader right now, but we all agree, Ronald Reagan = GOOD, Hillary Clinton = BAD.

Elect Hillary, and you will witness another Kerry '04. Especially if we see a few 3rd party runs.

How did this get on the front page of a blog that is reliably rational-minded? I read onegoodmove at least once per day, lurker though I am. I kept my mouth shut when i disagreed with some of the criticisms of Obama that seemed to resonate with Norm, based on his last few day's posts.

But this is just ridiculous.

From the opening line that places all the responsibility for the Clinton dustup on the shoulder's of Obama's supporters, I was a little miffed. Obama's supporters chose to "vilify" him... Good word - literally to make villainous. Honestly, I think the responsibiity for that - to the extent that it has happened at all - belongs mainly on the shoulders of Bill and Hillary. What has Michelle Obama - not a former president - said about her rivals that compares what Bill Clinton, Hillary's campaign (remember the misleading mailings in NH?), and their other surrogates have done to Obama - and to Edwards (remember the South Carolina robo-calls?)

Clinton can run his gator all he likes, but Obama & his people have to "shut the f. up" to avoid "vilifying" him. Nothing one-sided about that.

I like John Edwards, too - and there are some "points" in the article. I have reservations about Obama, and particularly about his relationship to Rezko. But, do I find "unbelievable" the statement that Obama's work for Rezko was in the context of sorting through some paperwork in a big lawfirm where he was practicing, and only amounted to 5 billable hours? Not at all. Why should I? Unless he is lying outright and was working as lead attorney for Rezko's firm at some point, then there's not much reason to doubt it.

On the other hand, Rezko was a shady character & Obama is not pure as the driven snow. That's fine. Neither were Hillary or Bill Clinton. I don't like it, but for a single character, where there was no real wrong-doing on Obama's part, I can look past it. If there is more dirt out there, then I'll decide on it if and when it surfaces - the same as I would for Bill, or Hillary, or Edwards. Don't ask me to assume that I'm going to be sorrier when a thing happens when you have given no reason to believe it will happen. Don't ask me to vote based on your dark, unsupported suspicions.

Have his campaign policies been a fraction to the right of Clinton and Edwards? I think so. But compare voting records and the picture takes a very sharp reversal.

There's nothing in this post that wasn't something I was aware of already and had considered. I like to be given the benefit of the doubt that I can reach my own conclusions about the negatives mentioned. Don't expect me just to adopt your perspective that these negatives make Obama unfit to be President. Don't expect me to see that as anything but spin.

Cult-like? Physician, heal thyself.

Thank you so much for this, Charles Lemos. Finally, some rationality. Obama fan people can crap themselves over your post—and try to dirty you too, but it will only add to the stink that this whole mass suicide could turn out to be. Duh! Obama is not the devil, and Hillary is not a witch, and Edwards may or not be the best Democratic choice, but come the big election day, who will pick up the pieces? Would more of Obama supporters stay home than vote Clinton than Clinton supporters never vote for Obama? From reading the comments here (and all over the web), i'm afraid so. i hope i'm wrong.

Where is this even coming from? This is complete crap.

Edwards my ass. Obama has always had more supporters than any of the candidates. He's had more charisma then any of our presidents in the last half century. He had more investors, more facebook friends, and more people have stuck with him. If you were a political analyst at any stage in the campaign (and you turned a blind eye to him being black) he would have been projected as the front runner from the get go.

Do you like Edwards because he's pretty? because besides that, it's all talk and no performance. He'll have a meaningless presidency because he will have no one behind him, and he can't get things done without support. Besides that he's a beauty queen . . he can't debate worth crap, he's all smiles and nods. He's fighting for his life right now . . if he was in Obama's position, you'd be hearing the same kind of campaigning.

jpaul... would that be comments on this site like "I can only say that I could not under any circumstances support Obama in a general election," from Lemos' post?

You're right - if you go by reading the web, Obama has more hot-headed people in the net-roots who would shaft the party if he's not the nominee (or if HRC is). Of course, when you weight that sample based on their relative net-roots support, then I don't think you'll find much difference percentage-wise.

On the other hand, if we are talking about primary voters, you are probably right. Obama has brought a lot of new people, a lot of young people, and a lot of people from disaffected voting blocs back to the polls. Edwards has also energized a lot of disaffected voters. If Clinton is the nominee, then she's going to have to somehow keep that enthusiasm up among those who are new or otherwise uncommitted to the process, or see them fall by the wayside. Obama won't have to do that with nearly as many Clinton voters.

With the addition of by-lines, I wonder: is Charles Lemos going to be a regular contributer?

As a long-time, very regular reader, it would have been a nice touch to have had a proper introduction before being affronted by this pissy little snit of an article.

Yes, who is Charles Lemos?

Charles is a historian by training but also has an MBA and and MA in International Policy. He went to Stanford and UCSD for his degrees. He worked for UNICEF in Geneva before grad school. Taught at universities overseas for two years before getting an MBA and that led to a ten year stint on Wall Street as an equity analyst for Alex. Brown & Sons and then for Goldman Sachs responsible for the GS world advertising forecast. He now sit's on the Boards of two non-profits, one in the arts, the other in economic development work primarily in Asia, Africa and Latin America. His politics are progressive and mirror my own in many ways though he's a bit more passionate on this particular issue than I am. I thought the post worthwhile because I agree with him that Barack is getting more of a free pass from the media than the other Democratic candidates. I have also noted that Barack attracts very passionate supporters who at times seem more taken by Barack's rhetoric than by his positions. It seemed an opportunity to open a discussion on what I consider an important issue. What I'm looking for here is a conversation, please keep it civil.

"Obama's supporters have chosen to vilify the former President." I haven't, and neither has anyone I personally know. Being excited about a candidate, even accompanied by some deserved criticism for his opponent, doesn't make us cult members. Watch your sloppy mouth. Most people I know say Clinton has screwed up, but we have some perspective. You don't seem to have any in your destructive rant.

"I can only say that I could not under any circumstances support Obama in a general election." Wow. The rest of your scorched-earth diatribe is so fact-challenged and assumption-heavy that it reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's style. That is, a lot of cherry-picking of unverified, fuzzy "facts", plus spin. Whatever did happen in Chicago, your reporting is obviously unbelievable.

Can you really imagine that your wimpy spiel proves Obama "a fraud, more corrupt than the Clintons, naive, insincere, and hypocritical." You should be working for Karl Rove.

Most comments here have ripped you several new assholes for you overreaching, holier-than-thou, "arguments", I'm happy to see. You've got a major chip, guy, and a little self-examination of your own is in order (won't holding my breath for that--clearly you are someone who needs to focus on your savior du jour, currently Edwards). Edwards is totally pure, yah right. Here's some more juice for your rantings: Obama's books are ghost-written, and he's actually gay. Rant with it.

Obama is no placebo, who the fuck actually knows if he'd be better than Clinton or Edwards. Those two, as has been noted here, have skeletons in their own closets. Who gives a flying fuck, these skeletons have little to do with their effectiveness as leaders. You have skeletons too, pal. What kills me is your certain, imbalanced tone and fake-outrage is repellent, because it is so off-base and destructive to the goal of getting over a seven-year nightmare. You are a typical reason Democrats don't win.

Obama does have something going for him. What you call not being partisan enough can also be described as an attempt to be inclusive. He can and has been bringing in new voters, from wherever. Who knows how he would work out, but your bogeyman focus on his possible faults is false-sounding and kinda destructive, really. You don't know.

You'd withhold a vote for Obama, giving a jerkoff like Romney or McCain more of a chance. I bet you voted for Nader--twice. Your hoity, negative, head-in-the-sand philosophy is a guarantee of another failure. Good luck to ya.

Dunno, Erick: all I can observe for the moment is the guy's had at least half a dozen folks ask for references to buttress his claims, and while he's posted two long defenses in this thread, I haven't seen any references. Each individual is free to conclude as he and she wishes, but the facts are these: the fellow's made some very strong and provocative charges; has been asked for his evidence of same; and has provided none.

Hell, I wrote a book about Harry Potter and it has over 120 footnotes! This guy speaks of a cult of Obama, a mafia-like aura surrounding the campaign, and not a single footnote. That's townhall.com or Drudge stuff right there, and it's not worthy of progressives. You read a true progressive blog like Eric Alterman's at Media Matters, and whether or not you agree with the guy, you sure as hell know his sources, where he gets the information to buttress his opinions.

So until Mr. Lemos is willing to open-source his evidence, I'm tuning him out.

Charles Lemos, you asked to be called and idiot.

No problem, you are an idiot.

Not because Obama doesn't deserve some criticism, but because you are the self destructive hateful candidate cultist that you accuse others of being.

All three Democratic candidates have flaws and skeletons, but Obama's flaws are not fatal, and no worse then Edwards' or Clinton's.

Get over yourself.

If there are other readers who share my progressive political views and would like to submit something they've written I'm happy to consider it.

"What I'm looking for here is a conversation, please keep it civil."

Norm, we were called cultists. And it was implied we are idiots, duped by a political fraud. You ask for civility?

Let me be the first to ask.

Please, will you take this post down?

"Furthermore it is clear that Obama primarily appeals to independents not the rank & file of the Democratic Party."

Mr. Lemos,

Is Ted Kennedy not a member of the rank & file of the Democratic party?

@Reed77 Are you kidding? Take this post down?

What is that? You want to censor? That would be the worst outcome of this heated discussion, and thankfully there is no chance that it will happen.

There is no hate speech happening here. You will survive being called a cultist or even an idiot. If it pains you to hear strong opinion, click somewhere else.

It was the only civil response I could think of.

I have no problem with people censoring themselves. Certainly Norm doesn't put his every thought on his blog. He keeps to a certain Tone and topics.

There might not be "hate Speech", but there certainly is the political murder suicide that chuck deludes himself, that he is against. His rehash of the Jackson analogy is pointless and at the very least distasteful.

The other option is to waste my time and the positive energy of the left with my own diatribe.

I am sure Norm will do what he wants. I wish what he choose was not to be divisive and insulting to his community and readers.

Wow, I am disappointed. This is far below what I expect from this site. I would expect this from Drudge, but not here. I am all for diversity of opinion, but this hack job is unacceptable. Like everyone else said, at least throw us a link or two.

No candidate is going to meet every need, or fulfill every requirement.

But looking at the passionate responses in this thread alone, it's clear that, for many of us, Obama is filling a void that has been aching to be filled for decades.

Speaking for myself, for the first time in my 40 years on this planet, I am hearing a leader speak and I am moved. Deeply, deeply moved.

Call me naive, and accuse me of having a superficial understanding - I do not care. These feelings are electrifying. And they are powerful.

Usually I select candidates based on my "pet issues". But after 7 years of darkness and despairing for the future of this great nation, I'm sacrificing my petty little indulgences this time around. Instead I'm choosing what I believe will be best for all of us.

I'm choosing hope, unity, and inspiration.

Edwards and Clinton, no disrespect to them, want to fix policy. But Obama is the one who understands that we can't fix anything with a broken spirit.

Obama supporters are certainly passionate. Do you think this take on Clinton is as over the top as you think Charles piece is?

Sigh.

All of this is very disappointing.

Few seem to be thinking of the big picture; instead there's mostly just idiotic bickering about politicians. None of the whores dancing around on the TV are your fucking saviors, guys. Don't ever forget that.

Fuck Hillary, fuck Obama, fuck Edwards, but if America gets another Republican warmonger for President because of all this circle-jerking, I know who to blame.

As for those of you trying to speak calmly and reasonably over all the noise: good luck.

Alright, come now, how many of us here have done the same exact thing as Mr. Lamos: written a post or perhaps a short article that went too far, said some things you wish you could take back? Maybe you were angry, frustrated, a bit tired. Suddenly you're comparing people to the Nazis and rapidly flushing and credibility your position might have had down the toilet.

I'm not big on flamming people or trying to shout them down because it I know how much it sucks.

I'm am in favor of taking the post down but only if Mr. Lamos would be willing to rewrite the post and present his position in a more hospitable and reasonable fasion. You know, taking things like "I think him a fraud, more corrupt than the Clintons,naive, insincere, and hypocritical" out and replacing them with claims that are a bit more substantiated (any at all would be good).