So Hillary Clinton has thrown her support firmly behind Barack Obama. Barack Obama seems only too glad to have it. They're now on the road together, looking like the best of friends. Clinton is talking about how great a President Obama will be, and I think we've all heard the talking heads discussing the possibility of an Obama/Clinton ticket.

I can't help but wonder, if Obama is truly about "change", why does he insist on playing the typical game of politics? Their differences during the campaign and the debates were pretty evident, each believing that they were far and away superior to the other, and they never wasted an opportunity to point that out.

Now, though, Clinton seems damn-near ready to blow Obama for letting her on the same stage with him, and Obama is now praising Clinton at every turn.

A quick Google search finds some articles in which Obama slams Clinton, her policies, her votes, etc. Hell, if I looked long enough, I'm sure I'd find where he criticizes her pantsuits. Now, they're coordinating their wardrobes.

Just a sampling:

Obama Accuses Clinton of Deception - washingtonpost.com

Obama Criticizes Clinton's Drive to Win - washingtonpost.com

Obama criticizes Clinton over Iran threat - USATODAY.com

FOXNews.com - Barack Obama Accuses Hillary Clinton of Dodging Tough Questions About Social Security - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Obama criticizes Clinton's support for resolution on Iran - Boston.com

Now, I fully realize that this is all in the name of politics; Obama wants those votes. But how honest a guy is Obama, really, if he seemingly has dismissed all of the terrible things he's claimed about Clinton in order to get her support and garner more votes?

I haven't heard or read anything, since she dropped out of the race, in which Obama slams her. He digs her now. Now, she's a wonderful person and an "asset" to his campaign. Hell, he's written a personal check to help her campaign debt.

Frankly, if he were a man of conviction, he'd thank her for her offer of support, but say "no thank you", and cite their stark differences as reasons why he would not accept her support. But, apparently, Obama's idea of "change" in the political arena is to, in fact, change nothing at all. He's playing politics as usual, and his fans and supporters are buying his bullshit...

Well to be fair McCain and Romney beat up on each other, its part of the process and Romney may be on the short list for vp as well. If Obama thinks hill will be a net gain, which apparently he does, she’s along for the ride.

He will NEVER add her to the ticket though. She is taking the only path open to her, trying to hang on and remain relevant.

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

That's politics for you. A politician's "convictions", as well as integrity and honor are almost always for sale. He's in this to win, and he'll do whatever it takes.

I'm curious about how Obama's small contributors see this plea to pay Clinton back on a debt she owes herself. Personally, if I contributed to HIM because I don't like HER, his asking me to pay off her bad debt would be insulting. If I wanted to give HER money instead of him, I would have.

I think it takes a lot of balls to even ASK for contributions for her. It's like asking a casino to give back the money you lost. Nobody forced her to risk the loot in the first place.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

And meanwhile "straight shooter" John McCain has changed nearly each and every one of the many positions which his disagreement with George Bush over made him the most well-known "maverick" in the Republican party. It must be particularly galling for him to support torture now.

Pot, Kettle

well this has been done for many many decades, it has become part of the healing process between adversaries, but your point is apt. I have no beef with it.

What concersn me is he backed out of public funding and to me at leats that the biggest hyporctical mpve he has made yet, and it has faded from the news, buiz as usual.

There are few here honest enough to admit as sppters of Obama they are disappointed as well they should be, and as I would should the roles be reversed. In the end one gets the back hand from the media and one doesn’t, that by and large plays a large part of it too.

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

Yes, agreed, if McCain is now for waterboarding that’s a big flip flop and he will have to deal with it and carry it. I see this as a flip flop as egregious as Obamas as in campaign financing , a pivot away from a core principal.

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

Oh my!

The "all-knowing" pundants predictions of a "huge divide" has fallen flat on it's face, as the Dems prepare to hand the GOP it's ass on a platter come November...



Cry me a river, Steve.

You don't think Obama would have Clinton as VP, even only for historical purposes?

In the past, it seemed that rotating our two parties into and out of office may have been a good thing since the democrats were more socialist, but willing to use some of that socialism to improve infrastructure; and the republicans were were more open market oriented and willing to try to keep taxes lower. It was more of a pendulum or equilibrium moving in and out of optimum.

Now that the republicans have abandoned their limited government and market friendly platform, I think they should take this election cycle off to reformulate their supply side economics theories to supply us with better government at lower cost.

Hopefully, the democratic party inertia will continue and we may get infrastructure development and upgrade as was the case with some of Bill Clintons' policies.

So you're incapable of offering anything intelligent to the conversation.

Got it...

no way, she and bill are not worth it.

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

This, of course, does nothing to address my point.

But, hey, keep buildin' that post count...

Your point was called DEMOCRAT Hypocrisy, by which it was a logical assumtiion you were making a detrimental comparison to the Republicans. I pointed out that the Republicans were doing it too, which addreses this point directly.

In the future, just say Hypocrisy or Politicial Hypocrisy. Then we will know that you are making a purely theoretical observation with no politcal overtones whatsoever

So did McCain, I guess they're even on that point. Except McCain started the process for it before he changed his mind.

As the saying goes: " Politics makes strange bedfellows"
He needs her supporters, nothing more, nothing less.

Was it really that difficult to digest the point I made there Steve? You seem to be of the opinion that the Obama Campaign (or any other, for that matter) is reliant on gaining support from you, or playing by the "rules" made up by the crowd that has put this Nation into the multiple crisis situation it finds itself in today. And now you sound very angry that Sen Obama is doing exactly what he said he would, bringing people together to work for everyone's, not just the few's benefit, and being successful at it.

That you would have Sen Obama act in a way that would CLEARLY divide people, merely shows that you really don't know much of anything about Sen Obama and what he stands for.