Which of course didnt happen, but that is the impression I got before I read the article.

It should be it's own story, but instead it's like a sub-story... OH BTW...

...hoping, I would guess, for tears from the O'Malley camp.

That line about his college debt, btw, is delivered in a self-effacing way that always elicits understanding chuckles from the crowds he's speaking to. He's right, though, he and Bernie probably are more in touch with families who are challenged to balance their income with their families' needs. They're not poor or struggling, by any means, but they likely do understand the pressures of budgeting to meet those obligations.

More interesting to me though, is how this post looks to be angling for a wedge between Hillary supporters here and O'Malley supporters. Isn't the sour politics between Bernie supporters and Hillary's here enough without this kind of recycled flame bait?

Especially the ballot issue. And you can see his comment any way you like bigtree. That's your right.

...O'Malley's problems in Ohio, and his answer to a question about Hillary which you highlight as an 'attack'.

Candidates have screwed up qualifying for the Ohio ballot and others without major consequences. If O'Malley's campaign catches steam, that problem may be solved with a write-in.

As for his differences with Hillary, that was pretty tame criticism, couched in a promotion of his own understanding of kitchen-table obligations many Americans face.

I can't imagine that you disagree with O'Malley on that point. Strange combo of concern about Ohio and concern about an 'attack' on Hillary, considering the source.

I didn't write the article. And I'm calling that out the oddity of that juxtaposition with my post. I also agree with O'Malley on his point that he is more in touch with the populace than Hillary is. The fact that you don't see it as an attack against Hillary and I do is a difference of opinion we are allowed to have.

...in these campaigns. I'm even less surprised at the capacity of some posters here to further those controversies here.

O'Malley is dong what he's supposed to do, define his candidacy against the others. The article seeks to diminish him as a candidate while highlighting dissension in the Democratic ranks. It's pretty weak tea (as O'Malley says), and it's standard election fare.

Posted here, however, by a strident Bernie supporter, it performs like the wedge politics it's designed for.

based on wealth... I'm going to read that as an attack.

And as far as dubiousness of posting, have you been to GDP lately? This is nothing compared to what gets posted by hillarians on a daily basis.

I don't follow O'Malley news heavily, but I suspect it would have made a bit more of a ripple if it had happened awhile ago.

...finally dropped it.

O'Malley, himself has shrugged it off, and the media isn't asking him about it at all.

Hardly "all last week" and it was detailed over a New Year's holiday.

So I'd hardly qualify that as old news and something that folks here likely find relevant.

I don't see it showing up in the DU search either. So it's pretty relevant to some folks.

...for me, it's old news and has already been posted in this forum.

It's also boring.

Great barbs he has taken at Clinton and Sanders. Prediction. Sanders goes back to the senate little to be heard from as has been his past history. O'Malley leads the next generation of the Democratic Party by heading up the DNC.

I listen to the Thom Hartmann show.

In fact, I heard from Bernie more than from my own senators.

shtick as a reason for his poll numbers either. I'm sure he will stay a staple of the Hartmann show so you won't miss anything from him. That is sweet.

Why the EPA, may I ask?

O'Malley is a good man, in other circumstances he would have had my full and enthusiastic support--he's attempting to run a campaign. Candidates tend to criticize each other, to highlight differences.

and so are his supporters who I like very much