The Achilles' Heel

Slate is running a three-part series examining the major weaknesses of the leading presidential candidates. The articles are worthwhile reads, brimming with interesting links.

• Rudy Giuliani--Too liberal?
• Hillary Clinton--Too cold?
  
• Barack Obama--Too inexperienced?

Also for your consideration, today's cover story from the New York Times looks back on Obama's tenure in the Illinois State Senate.

Your comments are welcome.

Latest Polls: Obama Strongest General Election Candidate

A new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll indicates that Barack Obama would be the strongest candidate in the general election, thanks to an unlikely source of support: Republicans.

While these early polls are highly speculative and largely meaningless, it is interesting to note that Obama is the only Democratic candidate who performs well in head-to-head polls versus the three major Republican candidates.

Among the findings of the poll:

• 15 percent of Republicans say they would choose Obama in a head-to-head match- up against Rudy Giuliani. Just 3 percent of Republican respondents say they would pick Hillary Clinton in a similar contest.
• A majority of Democrats say they favor ``a candidate who can bridge partisan divides'' -- a central theme of his campaign -- over a candidate ``with long experience in government and policy making,'' a cornerstone of Clinton's self-presentation. Independents voting in the Democratic primary say they favor unity over experience by more than 2-to-1.
• 18 percent of Democratic primary voters say they couldn't vote for Clinton, the highest negative rating of any Democrat. Five percent say they couldn't vote for Obama.

In recent polls, Clinton still leads by 11 points among core Democrats, and Clinton supporters would probably point to Obama's success appeal among Republicans as evidence that he is more moderate than liberal. Yet with so many tough challenges ahead--Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, health care, immigration--it is heartening to know that even Republicans are rallying around the one candidate who they believe can bring this country together and tackle the tough issues.

Clearly, Obama's message has been resonating among voters across the political spectrum: Partisan bickering has led us down the wrong path--It's time to come together and turn a new page in America's history.

Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

Financial disclosure forms filed by presidential candidates Wednesday show Barack Obama as the least wealthy of the top-tier presidential candidates, despite the fact that his family reported $991,000 in income last year.

It was an unusually high-flying year for the Obama family, however. $572,000 of the reported income was from Senator Obama's book sales, which surged as he gained national recognition for his leadership on issues like Iraq, alternative energy, health care, and the genocide in Darur.

The Chicago Tribue reported that Senator Obama's financial portfolio is divested of all companies that do business in Sudan.

While Obama obviously won't have to cut coupons to put food on the table, the Obama family fortune is downright meager when compared to the other candidates. Let's take a look, shall we?

• John Edwards. $479,000 last year in salary. More than $7.5 million from investments with Fortress Investment Group, a New York hedge fund. Net worth is estimated between $22 and $62 million dollars. He said he worked only a few days a month at the hedge fund, so maybe he just didn't know that Fortress owned offshore funds that served as tax havens for investors. Maybe he didn't know that the firm's portfolio included subprime lenders, which provide high-risk loans that often target minorities. Maybe he just didn't know.

• Lovely Hillary Clinton. Well, she requested a 45-day extension to file her papers. She just needed to get everything in order. I'm going to guess she's doing all right, though. As for Bubba, Former President Bill Clinton earned about $10 million in speaking fees last year.

• Speaking fees! Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) raked in $11 million by speaking at events around the globe, reminding everyone how qualified he is on issues of national security. His empire, sadly built on the ashes of the World Trade Center, is worth somewhere between $20 million and $70 million. Hate to be harsh on Rudy, but let's face it--just a few years ago his net worth topped out at about $1.8 million

• Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney became the richest candidate by buying and selling more than 180 companies through private equity funds. His net worth is somewhere between $190 million to $250 million. A healthy chunk of that money goes to the Mormon church, though. It's a rule.

• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is married to the millionaire daughter of an Arizona beer tycoon. Pretty cool.

So many choices. Hedge fund warrior. Former first lady. Former mayor cashing in on a national tragedy. Uber-wealthy private equity Mormon. Husband of a beer princess. Best selling author.

Hmm...I do love beer. And princesses. But I can't really jive with McCain's stance on Iraq.

I'm going to have to go with the best selling author. I'm sure Senator Obama wouldn't mind if you checked his book out from the library or borrowed it from a friend.

[Full disclosure: The author, a high school teacher, earned $42,448 in 2006. He has filed for an extension to report his net worth, which he will begin to calculate once he pays off his student loans.]

Guest Commentary: Is Obama a Pixy Stik?

My good friend Adam, a frequent Blog Obama reader, prides himself on being the devil's advocate in just about any situation. In an effort to jump start the comment section of Blog Obama, Adam has submitted this scathing critique of his "beef" with Obama and his campaign.

While Adam's comments do not represent the views of Blog Obama or its moderator, I do think that he addresses a valid concern among many liberal voters. Judge for yourself.

--Chris

In order to commemorate my triumphant return to the comment section of Blog Obama '08, I submit to you the following diatribe, which is at least semi-related to the post to which I am replying.

Obama has officially become a walking, talking, campaigning Pixy Stik: he's all sugar, no substance. I don't know about you, but I like for my candidates to bring some protein to the table, or at least some dietary fiber...but all I've heard from Obama so far is a bunch of tooth-rotting palaver about what sort of POLITICIAN he ISN'T, when all I really want to know is what sort of POLICYMAKER he IS.

Of course, I may be the only person who feels this way...after all, the way that you Obama groupies have been double-fisting the Barack-flavored Kool-Aid would seem to indicate that you all can't get enough of his sweet nothings. And that's just as well, since if Mr. Pixy Stik ever gets caught in the rain without his harmonious, bi-partisan umbrella, all you're going to have left is a puddle of Kool-Aid and the soggy remains of his paper-based exoskeleton.

(For what it's worth, I would still vote for Obama over Clinton, Giuliani and McCain, because "all sugar, no substance" still beats "all turd, no substance." Sad but true.)

Obama Sharply Critical of Supreme Court Abortion Ruling

The Supreme Court today voted in a 5-4 decision to uphold a ban on a specific abortion practice referred to as "partial birth" abortions.

Presidential candidates' remarks on the high court's ruling fell predictably along party lines. Democratic candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards all spoke out strongly against the ruling while Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mit Romney praised the decision.

Senator Obama in particular was sharply critical of the ruling, stating that "this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient."

The court's decision prompts speculation over whether the court will at some point in the future attempt to overrule the definitive Roe v. Wade decision.