Yes, its true. He supports the DLC/New Democrats and he is one!
Oh, the horror!
Do I care? No, but I sure some people here are going to go nuts.
So here it is:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 9/19862.html

More analysis(re:panic) from OpenLeft:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jse ssionid=4D759946CCD8F5E6D5CE7FB577D056EB ?diaryId=12156

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/natio nworld/chi-obama_frijun22,1,7722116.stor y?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cse t=true

"Obama again blames staff for miscues"

Despite often-lofty rhetoric that he plans to bring the nation a "new kind of politics," Sen. Barack Obama has surrounded himself with operatives skilled in the old-school art of the political back stab.

Yet when Obama was criticized this week for opposition research memos critical of Sen. Hillary Clinton's ties to India and Indian-Americans, he was quick to blame his staff.

"It was a screw-up on the part of our research team," he told editors and reporters with The Des Moines Register. "It wasn't anything I had seen or my senior staff had seen."

That is starting to sound familiar. It was at least the third time since February the Illinois Democrat has blamed his staff for a glitch.

When Obama assembled his crew early this year, he brought together a team with a long track record for the sort of caustic rhetoric he has pledged to avoid, just as other presidential candidates have done by hiring people similarly talented in the art of opposition research and attack. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) even hired some of the very people that trashed his 2000 presidential bid.

From his campaign headquarters on the 11th floor of a high-rise on Michigan Avenue, Obama's political warriors range from a research director with extensive experience in throwing darts from Democratic National Committee's offices to a communications director who once worked for a group that ran a controversial ad that used an image of Osama bin Laden to attack Howard Dean.

Source:http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/a rchives/2007/03/post_180.html#comments

also see:http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=25285

Don't Go Bonkers About The Times's Clinton Story

Before everyone goes nuts about the New York Times's write-up of its interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton, keep this in mind:

The Senate resolution set for debate today endorses the concept of a residual force in Iraq for counterrorism purposes. Said resolution is supported by Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other non-Liebermans. Most every Iraq plan propounded by Democrats since the end of "major combat operations" would keep a limited amount of troops in the country or on high alert nearby.

On 1/30, Sen. Barack Obama's office released a fact sheet about his Iraq plan. It included this sentence: "The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces."

Here's what the Times writes of Clinton: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence -- even if it descended into ethnic cleansing."

This is NOT a Note-esque criticism of the Times's Gordon and Healy, who dutifully led with the lede. It's just a caution to those who want to cast the substance of Sen. Clinton's remarks in the worst possible light.

There was some misinformation in the Breaking Blue Wire, I just thought I would clear that up here.
From TPMCafe.com

Buried in this New York Post piece is the news that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer "is likely to support moving the New York presidential primary to next Feb. 5, an earlier date sought by Clinton." This would obviously help Hillary, making it possible for her to rack up a big victory in her home state -- and the resulting momentum and buzz -- that much earlier in the process.

Relatedly, the Post also reports that Camp Hillary was "furious" with Spitzer because he hasn't yet sent clear signals that he'll endorse her, thus raising the specter of her not winning the backing of her home-state governor. But a Spitzer aide tells the paper that he is likely to announce his support for her in the coming months.

Source: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/ electioncentral/2007/mar/05/report_new_y ork_governor_will_back_moving_states_pri mary_to_feb_5_helping_hillary

This past weekend Presidential Candidate Barack Obama was quoted as saying, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted".

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=20070212/NEWS09/70212033 2-1/ENT06

What do you think? Any candidate likely to pick this up as an attack line?