Speaking of...

Democrats Attack Iraq Security Proposal
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 24, 2008; Page A09

Not what I was heading for but this:
Some in Party Bristle At Clintons' Attacks
Anti-Obama Ad Heightens Unity Fears
By Alec MacGillis and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 24, 2008; Page A01

The Clinton campaign argued that it was simply quoting Obama. But in the original context, Obama was describing the dominance of Republican ideas in the 1980s and 1990s, without saying he supported them, and asserting that those ideas are of no use today.

Con Text?Link?

[1-25-08: UPDATE AND FOLLOW THROUGH -- Speaking of... "unity fears" (Sometimes even professionals (WaPo) can misslink their lines) But I was speaking of unity fears in my post "Clinton in South Carolina" part of which I will bring up here:

The Democrats can be united. If they are not, they are not really Democrats. Putting a Democrat in the White House is the important thing. But putting the best Democrat in the White House is the most important thing. To do that, we need the votes of not just Democrats. But that does not mean that the candidate cannot be the best Democrat as well.

To make a finer point fuzzy -- No matter what a candidate says, does not mean the voter will follow. -- Either with their vote to another candidate, or in their understanding of why they follow anything. In this last link, I was searching in the way back machine in the upper left corner for meaning (*)... or some such word I had used in the past, but I must paraphrase myself, "People may follow whether they know what you mean or not." and there are results whether we know what they will be or like them or not.

(*) "people will follow" was the needed search for meaning applied to Bush.]