... “It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time — not once, ‘Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war. And you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since.’
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I’ve ever seen.
"What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the senator from Punjab? Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook. Scouring me—scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn’t take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.”
"But the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months is a little tough to take just because of the sanitizing coverage that’s in the media doesn’t mean the facts aren’t out there.”
The Big Dog is barking for his own, but basically he's right. After Obama voted against the War he got a little Senatorial attitude adjustment, and ever since, he's been just the same as Hillary in his voting record. I don't think we need either one of 'em.
We need a real Democrat running for President, not a Rethuglican Lite.