. . .why would they hold a conference call to talk about the questionnaire?
Hmmmmmmm
Sounds like the Clinton camp continues to be desparate:
-snip-
On Tuesday, an article by Mike Allen and Ben Smith on Politico.com, based on the 1996 IVI-IPO questionnaire that they obtained, they said, "from political sources opposed" to Obama's White House bid, "raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent."
A poll of Democrats by the New York Times and CBS News published Tuesday concluded Clinton "is viewed by Democrats as a far more electable nominee" than Obama or Edwards.
During a conference call with reporters, Obama said polls asking about electability that include Republicans and independents were more important.
"Republicans and independents are more open to my message of change than they are to any other candidate out there, and that's what is going to be required in terms of bringing people together to get things done," Obama said.
Following on the Politico article, the Clinton campaign offered backers who raised questions about Obama's liberal roots during a press call. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), referring to Obama's strong anti-gun positions reflected in the 1996 IVI-IPO questionnaire, said she was baffled over how Obama could be "talking about banning all guns" and then "all of a sudden" alter that position.
-snip-
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/692594,CST-NWS-sweet12.articleSo some on DU feel Obama is too moderate for their tastes and now the Clinton camp feels he may be too liberal. What's it going to folks. . .maybe he is just right.
Question to the undecideds, what do you think of the Clinton camp as trying to paint Obama as too liberal?