NP: Arsenal vs. Manchester United

Politco lays out the argument against Barack Obama, but I still don't get this notion that a vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary is an explicit vote against Obama, which is what the first pillar of the argument relies upon heavily. I think the simplest, most straightforward question that each of the Democratic candidates should be asked is whether or not they will exhort their supporters to come out and vote for the other in the event that they don't win. If Hillary works to convince the older women, blue-collar workers and Hispanics who voted for her in the primary to go with Obama, will that resonate enough to make a difference at the polls? Can Obama undo the "damage" with African-Americans and the post-collegiate crowd?

As to whether or not Obama could withstand the full force of the Republican slime machine, that's where you either believe in his ability to effect a "new kind of politics" or you don't. With the firestorm over his "bitterness" comments, there are efforts by the GOP to compare him to John Kerry, but to be that reductive is either painfully unaware or engaged in wishful thinking. The GOP would love it if Obama was as clumsy dealing with accusations as Kerry was, but he's clearly not.

On that note, I'm encouraged so far that my senator has sought to clarify and not retract his comments, because he didn't say that small-town "folks" -- and if you even play a Barack Obama drinking game, don't pick "folks" as your drinking word, for your own good -- only believe in God, or own guns, because they're bitter. He said they vote on these issues because they're bitter. Big difference.

With the media spotlight on him again, can Obama turn this perceived negative into another highly-covered speech, maybe about economic insecurity?