I'm not thrilled with how Obama's acting- or rather reacting.

I didn't like his "Wal-Mart" quip about Clinton in the debate- it opened the floodgates. And now I really don't like his ad in SC.

I think he's being reactive, instead of pro-active, and he's getting caught up in the trap set for him. He seems to be getting and taking bad advice.

He could have risen above the ridiculous attacks by the Clintons instead of eagerly embracing the mud wrestling. I don't think his agressive stance will serve him well. I'm NOT saying he shouldn't defend himself from the attacks the Clintons have launched; I just think he's been clumsy and tone deaf about it.

Furthermore, this battle is threatening to obliterate the issues, and that's what I find truly alarming and sad.

probably leaped off their couches and pumped thir fists in the air.

how many were turned off by the same comment?

That was the first time I ever did that with regards to politics.

Anne Klein and others. Were not they found to have been merchandizing goods from child-labor camps? Rebok too?

So are we now at the point where we don't want the poor or lower economic class to be able to purchase some of the things they desire? They should be poor and miserable too?

A close advisor to President Clinton sits on the Board of Directors at JC Penney.

on edit: Might I also add that Jordan, a Hillary endorser, also helped create PNAC and was a member of the Iraq Study Group.

Not when the media take such a hands-off approach with such attacks. It's a problem we will see at its furthest extreme in the GE, whoever nets the nomination.

"To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them."
-- Hamlet

Malcolm X used to quote Hamlet. In 2004, I thought that this one could be applied to Senator John Kerry during the Swift Boat Liars campaign.

If Senator Obama reacts to Bill Clinton's slings and arrows, the Clinton campaign spins it as an "angry man." If he fails to respond, they spin it as a "weak candidate."

In the art of conflict, one needs to respond, rather than react. We will see how things go after the South Carolina results are in.

Fighting Dems - not so much (and I mean to the extent that it takes over your message)
Also, Kerry won - so whatever people think he did wrong is really moot.

But the more I thought about Obama's Wal-Mart comment, the more I saw it as the wrong weapon to pick up and use. What if he hadn't said it? What if he'd just talked about his own record as a communtiy organizer and civil rights lawyer? Would that have changed the awful tone between Clinton and Obama in that debate?

As you know, I think that all of life imitates the reality of the sport of boxing. And there is a simple rule in the Noble Sport: if your opponent starts to foul you, and the referee does not stop him, then you must do whatever is necessary to protect yourself.

However, if you "react" by immediately fouling the opponent, the referee will always call you on it, and that is what the judges and crowd focus on.

Instead, one must "respond." That means being patient, and evening the score on your terms, not your opponent's.

does. However, it is imperative to respond in a smart manner and in this case, he is having to fight a former president along with the candidate which is a much unusual position to have to be in. On top of that, a former president who is popular, intelligent and loves a good fight.

Not an easy situation to be in but he did nothing wrong with the Wal-mart quip and he has to respond to the untruths and rovian tactics being used against him.

giving our candidates free air time,Edwards is even starting to get some.The Big Dog lead the way to manipulating the msm and, the candidates are running with it.Hopefully this will save some dollars for the GE.

He drew first-blood in that confrontation, which was good. Hillary was the reactive one there, with her follow-up Rezko comment. But I am concerned about how often Obama ends up on the defensive in this campaign. Hillary has Bill to get all defensive for her, so she can stay "above the fray." Obama has no such powerful surrogate. If Michelle Obama started hitting back as hard as Bill does for Hillary, she'd probably be labeled a b**ch by the other side. Bill has no such problem, because he's supposedly just "defending his wife", which most people see as a noble thing to do. But if a woman did the same for her husband, he'd be labeled as weak ("He needs his wife to defend him"), and she'd be labeled as some sort of shrill harpy.

was the perfect segue way for her Rezko-slumlord response.

Now, just a couple weeks before Super Tuesday, he finds himself with major NY Times and LA Times stories -- carried in other markets as well, I suspect -- which delve into the history of his relationship with this man, the growing warning signs Barack apparently ignored as Rezko's business ducked it's responsibilities and Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation grew and the misstatements Barack made -- and then was later corrected on -- about his dealings with Mr. Rezko.

For voters now just tuning in, it might be the kind of information that make them doubt both his earlier New Politics promise as well as his Hope and Change theme and move them off the fence toward Hillary.

A more experienced campaign would have put this fire out with the first spark. Instead, Barack's campaign turned their focus on Bill Clinton.

He did that. I think this strategy is for South Carolina where he can afford it. We will see him back on message very soon, but the warning has been delivered and received. Look, Cali, he was left with no choice after Nevada, but to get down on their level and show he is willing to do so if that's what it's going to take to win the nomination. I, too, want to see him back on hope and change and criticizing on issues, with surrogates cracking heads. But I also see he had no chance unless he got this out of the way before the Super Tuesday states. South Carolina ain't New England, hon.

never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

Would Obama had thrown out the Wal-mart quip if he had known Hillary would come back with the Rezko statement? Who knows? It certainly opened a can of worms I think both candidates now regret.