Lets get right to the point. The candidate who has claimed to be a uniter, someone who can help people bridge the divisiveness that has existed in the past has proved to be the most divisive figure in the history of Democratic politics. While his suporters claim he is the new "hope" and represents the "new politics" those who oppose him see Obama as the exact opposite of everything he claims to be. And with good reason. Obama has lied so often about so many things its hard to keep up with it all. He has lied about his so called accomplishments of the past which no one including him can specifically name, he lied to the people of Ohio about getting rid of NAFTA only to send an emissary to the Canadians to tell them not to pay attention to what he says publicly and he lied no less than 6 times in one week about Wright and his relationship with him. And he is still lying about it. This is the candidate who claims to be "the new politician", the candidate who was rejecting the politics of the past. As a "new politician" during the last debate he tried to claim that he never talked about or brought up Clinton's misstatements on her Bosnia trip only to have it pointed out to him that his campaign sent out countless emails about it. Obama's response? That was his campaign not him. The dog ate his homework. Only the most dishonest of politicians would try and pretend that he and his campaign are not the same thing but that was Obama's "new politician "response after getting caught in still another false statement. The problem with Obama and his campaign is that they are living proof that he is the opposite of everything he claims to be. Let's take his central claim, that he is a unifier, someone who can bring people together to unite and heal the divisions of the past. It shouldn't matter whether you are for him or against, whether you are as blind as Maureen Dowd,as hypocritical as Olbermann or as inept and incompetent as Jonathan Alter, Jim Vanderhei, Roger Simon and E.J, Dionne. The one thing you have to admit no matter who you are for, is that Barack Obama is now the most divisive force in the history of Democratic politics. Right now the party is divided right down the middle 50-50. between Obama and Clinton. It is the most divided the party has been in at least the last 100 years.Much more so than during Viet Nam. Obama and his supporters are viewed by Clinton supporters as hypocrites, liars and playing the same kind of dishonest politics that Obama supporters have accused the Republicans of playing in recent years. Obama supporters have called Clinton "a monster", divisive, and that she will say anything to win. Clinton supporters accuse Obama and his supporters of trying to bully Clinton out of the race(and with good reason -- they have). Obama supporters also accused her of playing the race card in South Carolina when it was clearly Obama who played it, and Obama and his supporters accuse her of the very tactics they themselves employ which they call dirty. Obama and his supporters also blame everyone but Obama for the revealing dismal performance he gave at the last debate. And finally 30% of Clinton voters say they would never vote for Obama in a general election. You can bet that if 30% are saying it, 60% are thinking it and would probably act on it. Though Obama claims he is a unifier his baseless, juvenile, even infantile,and hypocritical and dishonest attacks on Clinton sounds like the stuff of someone who couldn't unify two ends of a shoelace much less a country. As a unifier he has provem to be a total sham. He is virtually despised by Clinton voters,and many Obama supporters return the sentiments towards Clinton. But Obama is also mocked by Republicans as well as Democrats supporting Clinton for his weak and constatly changing answers about Wright and what he knew and when he knew it and what it really does say about his character and his beliefs. And the constant whinning of Obama and his supporters when things dont go his way has engendered contempt, snickering and derisive laughter by both Clinton voters, independents,and Republicans. The proof as they say is in the pudding. And it doesn't matter whether you are for or against him. And it doesn't matter at all what you think the reasons are or what you think is the cause. The results are irrefutable. Obama claimed from the beginning that he and he alone had the ability to be a a unifier. At that he has failed miserably and the attacks on Clinton by himself and his supporters in support of nothing more than his own amibtion is what is to blame. The cold hard truth is,no political figure has been as divisive than Obama. Not even Nixon. And it's only primary season. So its become fair to ask that if the central premise of Obama's entire candidacy is so obviously a failure and a sham, brought on mostly by himself, if he is so obviously such an enormous failure at the thing he claims to be his biggest talent, then why wouldnt he be the same disaster and failure at everything else he claims he would do? He has half the Democratic party not just disagreeing with him but despising him for his political tactics, and he has Republicans, conservatives and independents against him also. So if nothing else (and there is a lot else) we can say that judged on his most central claim, that he is a uniter, that he is able to help people overcome the things that divide us, Obama has been both a fake and a failure. Except in one sense he has in fact succeeded. He has managed to unify half the Democratic party most of whom are liberals, with Republicans, conservatives and independents all who seem unified in their contempt for him, his dishonesty and hypocrisy, and his associations with Wright which many point out show his lack of character, courage and conviction, his lack of moral leadership, and his inability to stand up to an anti-white, anti- American and anti-semetic demagogue who has given support and space in a church newsletter to the suicide bombing terrorist organization Hamas . So in a very real sense he has very much succeeded in helping bridge long standing divisions that have existed between people. Just not in the way he intended.