richardsgirl

Thank you for your post and your information. We need more Americans who are interested in facts and truth, and not just media spin; especially when that spin is coming from the likes of Sean Hannity. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:18:53

I agree 100% with your post. Senator Obama is up against the entire establishment - the machines of both political parties, corporate America, the military industry, and all that represents the status quo, business and politics as usual. This is an unprecedented challenge for any candidate, past or present. They fear Senator Obama as they have never feared any candidate before, and as much as if not more than they fear the threat to our country by terrorists. Their fear is that he will in fact help us to reclaim our country and reclaim the democracy that our forefathers envisioned. This will never do, because it will turn their world upside down! But as you say, this is our challenge too, and there are many things that we must overcome within ourselves before we can even begin to meet this challenge. This is truly a phenomenal time in our history, and how the story will someday be told is up to each of us. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:11:23

I agree that Hillary has been rolled over the coals. I also agree that Senator Obama needed to be asked some of the questions that he was asked, and I don't think he was as prepared as he could have been (although I think it would have been hard for anyone to prepare well for that kind of questioning). But Senator Obama has also been responding to these same questions for the last several months, and to spend two-thirds of the debate pummeling him with the same questions again was unwarranted. And where were the questions for Hillary ... except for her Bosnia story? She has questionable relationships! Issues have been raised over the last month about her character and judgment! Or was this debate intended just to vet Senator Obama and to allow Hillary to simply be a bystander? And if this was the case, perhaps Hillary didn't need to be there at all! I have no problem with Senator Obama being questioned and even beat up if it comes to that. This is part of our political landscape and it's to be expected, but not like it was last night. I agree that Senator Obama was not his best, and I also think Senator Clinton did well. But this does not overshadow ABC's culpability for what appeared to be a purposeful imbalanced fiasco which was not a debate at all ... it was a debacle! posted 04/17/2008 at 20:46:01

I agree with your post. I keep thinking of Wright in respect to Dr. Martin Luther King; not to say that Wright is another King, but both he and King shared many of the same views, and many of King's most famous quotations can be transposed into the words Wright also speaks. King was reviled by the establishment and by many Americans as well. He was called anti-American, labeled as a communist, and by standing against the status quo, he was defined as a race-monger. If King were living today and speaking from his pulpit as he spoke forty years ago, I fear that he would be facing the same animosity that he faced then. We revere King today as a dead man, a matyr; but throughout many of the early years of the Civil Right Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, our hero today, was treated like shit! This is all to say that nothing has changed, Things look better and seem better, and we're all a little more politically correct, but on perhaps the most fundamental issue in our society, we are basically still where we were forty years ago. Many of the things Wright said were off the mark; many of his words were crazy! But much more of what he said was truth, and to me, it is the truth of what he said that some Americans will always resist, just as they resisted the truth that Dr. King spoke four decades ago. posted 04/17/2008 at 20:07:09

Perhaps it would have been viewed as a balanced debate if they had also questioned Senator Clinton about the company she keeps as well. I think that the names of questionable relationships on her list would be at least as long as the names on Senator Obama's list, names and relationships that he has already responded to time and time and time again! posted 04/17/2008 at 19:36:32

The sheer ignorance of this post does not deserve to be dignified with a response.

God bless America and God bless you. You are indeed in need of prayer. posted 04/17/2008 at 19:25:54

I have been reading many of your comments and generally respected much of what you wrote, even though we disagree on the best candidate for the nomination and the president. But this is one comment I can't let pass. It's true that both candidates should have been prepared to discuss the issues, since this is essentially the purpose of the debate, and both should have also been prepared to respond to issues that have been raised as concerns about their personal character, as Hillary was when she was asked the question related to Bosnia. Ironically, this was the ONLYcharacter question addressed to Hillary in spite of the many character issues that have been raised about her just in the last month, contrary to the countless character questions posed to Senator Obama. Yet, Senator Obama was not only barraged with these inane questions about his character, his patriotism, etc., but also had to contend with the contentiousness of the moderators themselves. Few candidates, not even Senator Clinton, and no matter how well-prepared they are, could be prepared for this kind of assault at a formal debate forum. The moderators were in control of this debate, and it was the moderators, not Senator Obama, who prolonged this line of questioning. What they did was a disservice, not only to both candidates and their supporters, but to the American people in general. posted 04/17/2008 at 19:21:44

This is related to a thought I had today: Senator Obama is not only contending with the traditional opponent in the person of Senator Clinton. He is virtually in a battle against the most powerful Democratic machine in America - the Clintons; the most powerful and vile Republican machine in America; corporate America, as represented to us by the media; and a consciousness in many Americans that is as inherent in our society as the ideal of democracy itself, the consciousness of race. What Senator Obama is up against is unprecedented in our presidential elections, and no other presidential candidate before him has ever had to withstand the lightening warfare that he has been challenged with. But amazingly, Senator Obama is still standing, and if he can weather this, there is no doubt that he will weather the general election as well, and win the election in November. posted 04/17/2008 at 18:55:13

SIXTY since Super Tuesday, and it's being announced that MORE are coming out today AFTER THE DEBATE!! Hillary thought she could use this debate to sway super delegates in her favor, and once again, it backfired! To Hillary's dismay, the super delegates saw and heard the same thing we did, and they were obviously not impressed with either Hillary or the moderators who tried to help her. posted 04/17/2008 at 16:32:07

Does wearing a flag pin on one's lapel prevent one from lying to the country and engaging in an illegal and immoral war with no end in sight, or trashing the Constitution of the United States, destroying the middle class of America, and perpetuating upon the American people the deception and corruption that the Bush administration has done? Was Dr. Martin Luther King a patriot? He spoke out against and stood for the same things that Reverend Wright does. And perhaps if you walked in the shoes of black Americans or simply understood their plight in America, you would also understand what Michelle Obama meant, rather than simply accept the spin. The only reason Senator Obama is being questioned about his patriotism is because he is a black man with a Muslim name. Wright, Michelle's comments, and people who protested against Vietnam when Senator Obama was eight years old are merely the weapons of choice, with neither substance or credibility, being used to destroy his candidacy and the merest possibility that the leader of our country can be a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. He simply doesn't fit the paradigm of what an American president should be or look like; and some Americans are simply less willing to examine themselves and transform their consciousness, than they are willing to kick him to the curb because he doesn't conform to their small-minded world view. posted 04/17/2008 at 16:25:47

... and black men! posted 04/17/2008 at 15:48:58

Serious? Like, "Why don't you wear a flag pin?" Oh, that certainly gave me a lot of insight about the candidates' positions on how I'm going to stretch my next dollar to make ends meet. Or what about the questions concerning something someone did when Senator Obama was eight years old. Maybe that was an indirect question about the Iraq War, and I just missed the point! The only thing serious about this debate was the serious intent of the moderators to promote Sean Hannity's agenda and to make Senator Clinton look good! And it didn't work! posted 04/17/2008 at 15:39:04

In African American churches (and I thought this was true of all Christian churches), we tithe 10% of our income to the church ... not to the Pastor. Senator and Michelle Obama are millionaires, and their tithing for 2007 is not only not an unreasonable amount of money, but it is also quite commendable. Many wealthy people do not give this generously to their church.

Yesterday, I watched thousands of Americans gather on the White House lawn with President Bush to give honor to the Pope who leads a church community in which thousands of young boys, and some girls, have been criminally assaulted by thousands of priests over generations. They were not assaulted by soundbites, but by sexual acts perpetuated against them when they were children, and the assailants were protected and are still being protected by the church leaders, including the Pope. Why haven't these people left the church? Why are they and our President giving honor to this man who is the leader of a church that has brought this kind of shame to its church communities and to our country. Who are you to judge Senator Obama for staying in a church that obviously meant more to him and gave more to the church community than the few controversial or inflammatory soundbites that Sean Hannity used to misrepresent both the Pastor and Trinity United Church of Christ? posted 04/17/2008 at 15:22:45

What does Reverend Wright's "life of privilege" have to do with ANYTHING! Does that take away from his service to our country or his forty years of selfless ministry? Are you suggesting that he should not have lived a life of privilege because he's a minister ... or is it because he's black? Privileged blacks are not immune from racism in America, nor are they blinded to injustice. Is there a problem with Reverend Wright living his retirement in a beautiful home built and paid for by the members of his congregation? Is there something illegal, immoral, or unethical about this? Many prominent white ministers have also retired to beautiful homes paid for by their church members, a tradition in both black and white church communities. Is there a different standard for black ministers?

And one more time ... Reverend Wright said, "God DAMNED America" in the context of a QUOTE. The quote itself was from a WHITE former ambassador, a fact that Sean Hannity chose to omit in his slanderous soundbites, but a fact that is made obvious to anyone who listened to the entirety of Reverend Wright's sermon. Other church leaders, both black and white, have expressed similar sentiments over the years, including Dr. Martin Luther King. Your problem seems to go a lot deeper than Reverend Wright, but its root or source is not in anyone or anything you've referenced in your post. It's all within you. posted 04/17/2008 at 15:00:26

The debate was a fraud, and Clinton was part of it. THIS is what the American people were exposed to, and the American people will respond to this fraud on April 22, and again in the general election when Senator Obama is given the nomination and inevitably the White House! posted 04/17/2008 at 14:34:41

The Republican Party, from Bush on down, wear their flag pins consistently; yet, they are also the ones who illegally and immorally invaded a sovereign nation, sent our children to die in a war that never should have been and that has no end, trashed our constitution, destroyed the middle class, polarized the country as it has not been divided since the Civil War, and were engaged in more deception, corruption, and scandal than we have witnessed in any previous administration. These are the PATRIOTS who wear flag pins and place their hands over their hearts during the playing of the National Anthem. The flag pin is no more an indicator of patriotism than standing on one's head, and after the last eight years, it's frightening to think that there are still Americans who see a cheap lapel pin as a sign of one's love for America. posted 04/17/2008 at 14:30:45

Apparently others do not share your opinion that his response "didn't work." This morning, AFTER THE DEBATE, another major Pennsylvania Newspaper endorsed Senator Obama. Many Pennsylvanians, prominent organizations, and Americans in general have publicly expressed outrage at the scurrilous "politics as usual" questions that the moderators pummeled Senator Obama with, and at Senator Clinton's attempts to exploit these questions to her advantage. Senator Obama was very prepared for the issue-questions. He wasn't prepared for the personal attack questions that were based on nothing more than innuendo and gossip. Senator Obama has more integrity than any presidential candidate or President that we've had the opportunity to witness in decades. We're so used to "politics as usual," even in our Presidents, that it has become the norm. But, with Senator Obama, we can now start getting used to a President with character, experience, a vision, and a plan to reclaim our democracy and our rightful place in the world. posted 04/17/2008 at 14:18:18

Thank you. I'm passing these numbers on to others immediately. posted 04/17/2008 at 14:01:52

Another irony perhaps is that Hillary was once again forced to say what she clearly did not want to say, just as she was forced to acknowledge that her vote for the Iraq resolution was a mistake (still not apologizing). When asked if Senator Obama can win in the general, her response was: "Yes! Yes! Yes!", as if to say, "Okay, I've said it! Now leave me alone!" She didn't want to say it because her performance at the debate was designed to sway the super delegates, and she didn't want to express any positive view of his electability. posted 04/17/2008 at 13:53:46

Maybe you should ask, "Why couldn't you answer those questions ... to my (YOUR) satisfaction."

He has answered these questions repeatedly, and the only ones who persist in asking the same questions over and over again, are those who will never be satisfied with his answers. But, fortunately for Senator Obama in the general, the rest of America has moved on beyond these inane questions that have nothing to do with his exemplary credentials to be the next President of the United States. posted 04/17/2008 at 13:44:49

Senator Clinton's approval numbers among DEMOCRATS is 38%. Apparently, there aren't enough of "them" to give her the election in the general. To the contrary, Senator Obama's number of 62% among Democrats, and with the support he has from moderate Republicans and Independents, his chances of winning the general are much more optimistic than Senator Clinton's, whose base of support is essentially older white women and "blue-collar" white communities.

Senator Obama responded defensively because he was put on the defensive with the inane tabloid questions that Stephanopoulos and Gibson insisted on pummeling him with throughout the debate. The clear imbalance of this debate did nothing to present the reality of either of the candidates. Senator Clinton was generously provided a platform to "perform," while Senator Obama was denied even the courtesy of responding to his questions without interruption and arguments from the moderators. posted 04/17/2008 at 13:37:30

I agree. The media started off making sport with Hillary because she was the "inevitable nominee." When it dawned on them that Senator Obama, a black man with a Muslim name, was actually winning, they changed their tune. They ARE afraid, and they are doing everything they can, including working with the Clinton campaign, to dismantle his candidacy. This has truly been an eye-opener! posted 04/17/2008 at 13:20:02

Hillary "handled the inanity better" because she wasn't pummeled like he was with baseless questions from the Hannity Press. The one question they asked her about Bosnia seemed to be their attempt to show balance, while only serving the purpose of giving her the opportunity to apologize. For the entire debate, Senator Clinton simply looked smug, which leads me to believe that she knew exactly how this debate was going to go. Even when finally questioned about the issues, Charles Gibson was contentious with Senator Obama to the point of rudeness. I doubt if Senator Obama was prepared for this attack from Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but I think he did well in responding to it. posted 04/17/2008 at 13:14:13

I've been asking the same question. Senator Clinton's supporters not only defend her lies, but they seldom offer a cogent argument for their support for Senator Clinton as opposed to Senator Obama. Their arguments are generally, because she's woman, he's an empty shirt, he's an elitist (new word), he's unpatriotic, he's a Muslim ... and on and on. But there is never any substance or evidence to support their arguments or even to substantively refute the arguments against their candidate. And now, they're so happy that Senator Clinton, from their perspective, finally won something, even though it was clearly orchestrated in her favor and blatantly in Senator Obama's disfavor. It's a wierd dynamic between Senator Clinton and her supporters ... it's as if they're one and the same person! posted 04/17/2008 at 01:16:47

She is good at winning debates ... she's just not very good at winning elections! posted 04/17/2008 at 01:04:03

Well, if we're looking for a candidate who is secure and humble enough that he doesn't seek to attack his opponent, in spite of her incessant attacks on him, then that tells us something about his character ... and her's. To answer your questions: Yes, I think character is something we should consider in electing our president, and the contrast between his character and Senator Clinton's character is striking! posted 04/17/2008 at 01:01:58

I was really into your post, anticipating an intelligent and responsible comment on the debate ... and then I got to the last paragraph!

Idiocy! posted 04/17/2008 at 00:56:45

I agree that the questions were legitimate, in that they are going to be asked over and over again because Hillary and the Republicans will make sure that these questions are raised throughout the primary and into the general. But Senator Obama is responding to this double standard with the integrity and honesty that speaks to his character, and the American people recognize and appreciate this.

But I do not agree that there is nothing wrong with our nation! We are indeed the greatest country on earth ... with a lot of internal problems, many of which I've become even more conscious of just by reading the posts on this blogsite. We have deep wounds in our country that are simply festering, and without healing, we will inevitably someday implode! We deserve a president who is not afraid to honestly address these concerns and to challenge us to address them as well. And unfortunately, neither Senator Clinton nor Senator McCain fit the bill. posted 04/17/2008 at 00:52:46

Yes, they really did!! I so wanted Senator Obama to remind us that the people who so proudly wear their patriotism on their lapels are the same people who've sent our children to die in an illegal and immoral war; the same people who've dismantled our constitution; the same people who've destroyed the middle class with their obsession for the wealthy, and the same people who've lied to us incessantly and created more corruption and scandal on Capitol Hill than we've ever witnessed. Wearing a flag pin on one's lapel or placing one's hand over one's heart during the playing of the National Anthem can no more define patriotism than standing one's head. But I guess some people will always be swayed more by symbols than substance. posted 04/17/2008 at 00:31:57

And Hillary also had to finally admit, under pressure mind you, that Senator Obama is electable as well. Senator Obama has always said that Hillary is electable, reflecting the conscientiousness of his campaign not to deviate from our objective as Democrats to win the general election. It has been Hillary who has dishonored this objective by suggesting, through her surrogates, her ads, and her own words, that Senator Obama is unelectable, with utter disregard for the Party's general election agenda. And it was only in this forum that she was compelled to finally said, "Yes! Yes! Yes!" Sort of like the way she was finally compelled to apologize for her vote for the Iraq resolution. She didn't really want to do it, but she had to save face. It's sad isn't it that Hillary has to be forced to be gracious! posted 04/17/2008 at 00:19:37

I just read a post from another Hillary supporter (I checked the profile as well), but unlike you, he/she also saw the imbalance in this debate that most of us saw, and the ferocity with which Charles and George questioned Senator Obama in clear contrast to their questioning of Senator Clinton. It's unfortunate that Senator Clinton can only "appear" to do well in this competition by participating in the orchestration of such a farce. Let's not forget that it was Senator Clinton who insisted on this debate, and now most of understand why. It has already been reported that George Stephanopolous (formerly of the Clinton administration) received his briefing from Sean Hannity before the debate, and apparently Charlie Gibson had received his orders as well. However, it was refreshing to read the post from a Clinton supporter who was actually able to view the debate objectively and come to the same conclusion as Senator Obama's supporters and much of media have also reached. I also respect his/her honesty much more than I respect those who would accept this debate as fair simply to pump up their egos and to give Senator Clinton credit that she doesn't deserve. By doing so, her supporters have become as complicit in her deceptiveness as anyone. I can see them enabling her, in spite of her deceit, much like Bush's blind loyalty supporters have enabled him for the past seven years. posted 04/17/2008 at 00:07:17

I appreciate your honest assessment of the debate as a Hillary supporter. The debate was very imbalanced and both moderators were clearly favoring Senator Clinton in their questioning. Charlie Gibson even stooped to arguing with Senator Obama about his responses. This is the debate that Hillary demanded Senator Obama to have, and it's obvious that the Clintons played a role in orchestrating this staged performance. Perhaps it was to counter your perspective of the media's love affair with Senator Obama, but it was truly a disservice to the electorate in the sense of providing a meaningful forum from which we can make an informed choice about both of the candidates. posted 04/16/2008 at 22:29:44

She also said, "Yes! Yes! Yes!" because she felt that she was being pressured into it. Senator Obama graciously acknowledged that Senator Clinton can win the election if nominated; but Senator Clinton was literally forced into acknowledging the same for Senator Obama. It was like she was saying, "Okay, okay! He can win! Are you satisfied! I said it, now leave me alone!"

She just doesn't have the class he has. posted 04/16/2008 at 22:21:32

I expressed concern earlier today about George being the moderator, but I was surprised at Charles Gibson's contentiousness. As the final debate, it had the potential to make a real difference for both candidates, but it didn't do that. Both George and Charlie presented questions to Senator Obama that put him on the defensive during most of the debate, while Hillary was questioned only about Bosnia to give her an opportunity to apologize, but not about any of her other gaffes, for lack of a better word. I appreciate the questions and responses on the issues, but that didn't come until late in the debate. posted 04/16/2008 at 22:13:20

If you've noticed, Charlie Gibson has been pretty contentious with Senator Obama throughout much of the questioning. posted 04/16/2008 at 21:41:15

Sometimes, the hardest people to save are those who are suicidal! posted 04/16/2008 at 20:19:59

Obama said all this? He actually said he doesn't respect them! That he thinks they're miserable and deluded? That their culture has no intrinsic value? That they're losers? That they hate outsiders and have nothing good in their lives?

I must have missed this speech! Apparently, the media did too! And so did everyone else! posted 04/16/2008 at 20:18:20

Rev. Wright is still not running for president. I think the words coming out of the candidates' own mouths have a greater impact on their candidacies than the words coming out of someone's else mouth, especially when the words coming out of someone else's mouth are mere soundbites. posted 04/16/2008 at 20:10:48

You've made my point exactly. Thank you. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:59:04

Why? posted 04/16/2008 at 19:54:47

Arianna Huffington is not running for president. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:51:27

I wonder if you'd feel the same if Senator Obama had profanely slammed bigoted whites in the South 13 years ago, and if you would have been wondering if this is bad ... how. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:48:51

It's already backfired. Obama's electability numbers among Democrats, as of today, is 69%, whereas Hillary's is in the thirties. He's continuing to close the gap in Pennsylvania, and while both of their negatives are rising as a consequence of this prolonged and increasingly bitter campaign, Hillary's are rising at a much greater rate. The more negative Hillary becomes, in her desperation, the more positive Senator Obama's image becomes among the electorate. It's unfortunate that Senator Clinton, our first credible woman candidate for president, has lost so much credibility, and has so damaged our hope to someday soon see a woman president in the White House. She has made it so much more difficult for the women who will come behind her to seek the presidency. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:38:44

And, isn't it a little sad that they're "the only ones that vote for her!" This not only says a lot about them, but a lot about her as well. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:28:37

I was thinking the same thing about the conflict of interest thing with Stephanapolous. But if my memory serves me, it seems that he and the Clintons had some kind of rift either before or after he left the Clinton administration. Nonetheless, I agree with you, and I wouldn't doubt if the Clintons had something to do with him being one of the moderators. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:23:10

The one who seems to have forgotten which Party she's in and seems to be confusing her allegiance to the Democrats with an allegiance to the Republican agenda when she needs it to trash her Democratic opponent, is Senator Clinton. I agree that Arianna shows a bias, but this is her post; and reporting on unfavorable facts about Senator Clinton are still facts, which is not trashing her. Arianna also posted the article about Senator Obama's comments re: the"blue-collar" community in Pennsylvania, which many of Clinton supporters enjoyed and applauded, and that was not the first article she has posted that has not been favorable to Senator Obama. So, although she may have a bias against the Clinton nomination, I think she has attempted to be balanced. Meanwhile, the only ones who are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory are President and Senator Clinton. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:19:24

Well, at least she wasn't so insensitive as to use words like, "cling to" and "bitter." And they can't even be compared to Senator Obama's elitism in trying to explain why the "blue-collar" community is so frustrated. Bill and Hillary just said, "Screw the angry white people," and we all know there's nothing elitist about that !! Senator Obama, who's totally out of touch with the culture of "blue-collar" America had a lot of nerve expressing compassion and concern for their hardships. He should have been more like Bill and Hillary, who just don't give a damn about them at all! posted 04/16/2008 at 19:03:10

I have been voting and actively supporting candidates for the last forty years! Tomorrow, I will participate in a "call-in" party for Senator Obama. The facts apply to all of the candidates, and I am among the first to acknowledge when Senator Obama or his supporters get the facts wrong, or even when I get them wrong myself. But Senator Clinton has a tendency of late to make up facts and to create realities that are not sustained by truth. Unfortunately, many of her supporters also have a tendency to defend this deceit. I do agree that Senator Obama will need all of the Democratic electorate in an ideal election scenario; but many of those who support Senator Clinton are less supportive of her than they are opposed to Senator Obama. In other words, they're not simply FOR Hillalry ... they're AGAINST Obama, under any circumstances, and no matter who his Democratic opponent is. So they'll never vote for him; but the good news is that they're in the minority of the Party, and he will still win without them! And now I must go and pass out some leaflets for OBAMA ...! posted 04/16/2008 at 18:39:13

"But I'd have to say, Obama is smart ..."

I agree, and most Americans are just as smart, smart enough to listen to the entirety of the sermons, not just the thirty-second inflammatory soundbites; smart enough to have a sense of history and to understand the context in which Pastor Wright spoke; smart enough to recognize that a person's character and ministry cannot be judged by a few controversial remarks; and smart enough to empathize from their own experience, how it is possible to remain in a church for twenty years when the goodness of the church and the church's pastor far outweighs that with which one may disagree. No one has to defend Senator Obama for being part of Reverend Wright's church for twenty years, nor does he have to defend himself any more than he already has. We now know that Sean Hannity misrepresented Pastor Wright, and we accept Senator Obama's response to the controversey. So you see, Senator Obama isn't the only one who's smart. Most of us are just as smart as he is, and a lot smarter than you and Sean Hannity give us credit for. posted 04/16/2008 at 18:19:26

No one said she "voted." She affirmed herself that she is a supporter of Senator Obama, but neither she nor anyone else ever said she VOTED for him. Typical response from Obama haters ... all talk, but no substance or credibility. Just like Hillary Rodham Clinton!

BTW, Barack Hussein Obama is not only an honorable name but speaks to an honorable heritage. I think you need to start getting used to it. posted 04/16/2008 at 18:02:54

By growing up to become a woman who supports Senator Obama. posted 04/16/2008 at 17:56:01

You're right about one thing! I am a woman, and I do see him for who he really is ... and I can't wait to see him win the nomination and go on to win the presidency.

I also think that women who are supporting Senator Clinton simply and solely because she's a woman, and have no other credible argument to support her candidacy, are dealing with some very serious personal issues. posted 04/16/2008 at 17:51:23

There's a difference between commercial ads and political ads. An actor portraying a real person in a toothpaste ad is a lot different than actors who are deceptively presented to the public AS real people, as Senator Clinton's campaign attempted to present these particular actors. At least the people Senator Obama presents to us as real people in his ads are actually real people. This is one of the reasons Clinton's numbers on honesty have dropped at such an alarming rate. No one believes Senator Clinton anymore ... and now we can't even believe her ads! What more can she deceive us with? Is she even really Hillary Clinton? Who is this woman? posted 04/16/2008 at 17:44:54

You know I'VE noticed :) posted 04/16/2008 at 17:06:34

Why can't we agree that everyone who does not support Barack is not a racist; and everyone who does not support Hillary is not a misogynist! The simplicity and idiocy of this argument does not add to the discourse and does not give honor to either candidate.

When racism and misogyny are apparent in a person's comments, then it's reasonable to respond to it as such. But when it is not apparent, as it was not in Mr. Springsteen's endorsement, then the only thing that does become clear when you call him a misogynist, is that the sole reason you are supporting Senator Clinton is because she's a woman; and that in itself leads one to wonder how someone so shallow and uninformed can responsibly engage in this election process. posted 04/16/2008 at 17:30:46

Not as low as not getting the endorsement. Ask Hillary! posted 04/16/2008 at 17:19:01

It's not that anyone has forgotten about Wright; we just weren't suckered in by Sean's soundbites. And not even the MSM has been suckered into looking for something in the Rezko trial that isn't there. Nor will Sean sucker us in by his lies about Senator Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers either.

Except for fans like you, Sean Hannity has lost his credibility, even among some of his FOX colleagues. I guess he failed to realize that most Americans, with few exceptions, are intelligent critical thinkers and intellectually honest, and usually want to hear both sides of the story, not just thirty-second inflammatory soundbites. The few exceptions are in the dwindling minority, so it really doesn't matter who you and Sean vote for. posted 04/16/2008 at 03:49:02

I guess I was wrong AdLib. Obama CAN actually win the 2025 delegates. Thanks for the numbers. posted 04/16/2008 at 03:34:29

Most of us realize that neither candidate can get 2025 delegates, and therefore by this standard, Hillary cannot win either. And since no one anticipates either candidate getting 2025 delegates, we will eventually have to accept that the candidate who is leading by all other measurements will be the nominee, which will be affirmed by the super delegates if it comes to that. On the other hand, we will also have to eventually accept that the candidate who is losing by all other measurements, and who cannot possibly overtake her opponent's lead, will not be the nominee. Yet, miracles can still happen and things can indeed turn around in her favor; but even so, it is very unlikely that it will make a difference. Therefore, not only is the 2025 delegates NOT the most important factor, but it's not even a relevant factor anymore, and it hasn't been for a long time. posted 04/16/2008 at 03:30:48

I think that's true of some of the younger voters, but most appear to be as informed and as conscientious about making a choice between the candidates as some of us older voters (speaking for myself, not for you). I think it becomes most evident about the younger voters who are less informed when historical facts or issues are raised and they are incapable of responding to those facts and issues in the context of our history, or as you say, have no sense of history at all. For the most part, however, I think most of the younger voters are very keen about this election process, and I've actually learned a lot from them just on this blogsite alone. I also think that they can make a clear distinction between who they think is cool and who would make a better president. In fact, I think they realize, even more than some of their older counterparts, that sometimes a good president can also be very cool. posted 04/16/2008 at 03:07:09

McCain WAS in the middle until the primary began and until he realized that he had to move to the right to win the support of most Republicans and supporters. So, at this point, we really don't know where McCain is, probably because McCain doesn't know where he is. Apparently, he's willing to be wherever he has to be to win the election. I respect Senator McCain more than many of the others in his Party, but he has shown himself to be very compliant to the whims of the very people who've enabled Bush's "shock and awe" presidency for eight torturous years; and I fear that McCain, whose entire platform has been the Iraq war, will be more of the same. Bush and the social conservatives don't hate McCain anymore; they don't entirely trust him, but who can when none of us know exactly where he's coming from or where he'll take us if he becomes president. posted 04/16/2008 at 02:47:25

Why is it that Senator Clinton's supporters think so little of themselves?

Most Americans, and most Democrats, are middle-class, which makes up the largest segment of our population; and so far, most are also supporting Senator Obama. Most of Senator Obama's contributors are middle-class as well, which is why it's a grassroots campaign; whereas, the majority of Clinton's contributors are wealthy. And even most men, wealthy and middle-class, are supporting Senator Obama. If it's a class war, Senator Obama is still winning, among all economic classes, with the exception of the "blue-collar" community, who are guided more by their traditions than by their economic status. posted 04/16/2008 at 02:36:59

According to the Clintons no one matters who doesn't support Hillary:

Small states don't matter.
Caucus participants don't matter.
Men don't matter.
Black people don't matter.
Women under fifty (who vote for Obama) don't matter.
Young people don't matter.
Educated people don't matter.
Most Democrats don't matter.
Republicans don't matter.
Independents don't matter.
Super Delegates don't matter.
Pledged delegates don't matter.

Hmm ... who's left? posted 04/16/2008 at 02:23:16

Sorry, I replied to the wrong post.

What I meant to say is that whizkid sounds INSANE. posted 04/16/2008 at 01:58:10

You sound insane! posted 04/16/2008 at 01:56:47

I tend to believe that his ego will outlive his legacy. By the end of this election, his legacy will be DOA, and all he'll have left to "cling to" IS his ego! posted 04/16/2008 at 01:55:31

It's odd isn't it that only a few days ago, Bill was insinuating that older people are senile (defending Hillary's sniper-fire misspeak), and now he's saying the younger people are idiots! I am of Bill and Hillary's generation, and I remember well the nineties, a time when I greatly respected and admired both him and Senator Clinton. But this isn't the nineties anymore, and a lot has changed since then, including the Clintons themselves. Bill and Hillary have fallen from their pedestal. No one pushed them off; they're free falling all on their own. They are both narcissistic beyond belief, and will find a way to demean anyone who is not supporting Senator Clinton. They believe that not only is she entitled to the presidency, simply because she's Hillary Clinton, but that he too is entitled to return to the White House, as if it belongs to them! When this election season is finally over, I look forward to the Clintons just going away, somewhere very, very far away. Whatever respect I had for them has eroded to nothing more than a distant memory. posted 04/16/2008 at 01:42:02

62% of Democrats believe otherwise!!! posted 04/16/2008 at 16:23:57

Great in-depth analysis dora_rice. Once again, your arguments are well substantiated and clearly laid out for anyone to grasp the intellectual process by which your comments are construed. It truly tells a lot about you and the intricate workings of your mind!

Thank you for your input; but, as Hillary says, "They're just WORDS!" posted 04/16/2008 at 16:22:50

That Bill Ayers was a radical protestor of the Vietnam War forty years ago? This is true. That Bill Ayers himself claimed to have placed bombs in the Pentagon, claims that were never proven and for which he was never convicted? This too is true. That decades later, he and Senator Obama sat among many others on the same board? Yes, this is true also. That as fellow board members, they became friendly and occasionally visited each other's homes? Yes. That their casual friendship developed almost fifty years after the claims and charges against Bill Ayers had been dropped, and during a time when Bill Ayers was a professor at a prominent university in Chicago? Yes, true. That Bill Ayers, now an old man and very respected in the community, had put his youthful indiscretions as a Vietnam protestor behind him, until Sean Hannity, in his usual destructive manner, is now trying to use this to once again slander Senator Obama by suggesting that he is associated with a "terrorist?" This too is true. Is Sean Hannity's misrepresentation of Senator Obama's association with a terrorist a lie? Yes, it's a lie! posted 04/16/2008 at 16:13:54

Washington Post poll: 62% of Democrats believe that Senator Obama is more ELECTABLE in the general election than Hillary (39%). It's amazing! In spite of all the garbage that's been thrown at him, HE'S STILL RISING!

I know! I know! Polls are not very reliable, but they do give us a sense of how the tide is turning; and this tide seems to be turning in Senator Obama's favor. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:57:56

Why not a "lily white neighborhood on a golf course?" There're no signs in the neighborhood that say, "Whites Only." posted 04/16/2008 at 15:48:46

"It's funny that he is 50% white, 50% black, yet, we say he is a BLACK MAN!!!"

The "backwards country" that established the rule of one-percent is America! MOST African Americans are bi-racial, some more and some less and, like Senator Obama, they too are still black. It's not just about skin color, it's also about experience, and the black experience in America also defines a black man's or woman's identity, regardless of the complexion of their skin or the dynamics of their heritage. My question is, why some white Americans, including many of Senator Obama's supporters, cannot accept that Senator Obama IS a BLACK MAN! Why they have to slice and dice him up genetically to make him conform to a racial identity that they are more comfortable with, and why they find discomfort in the fact that he is black. To me, this is no different and no better than those who DON'T support Senator Obama BECAUSE he is black. Some of his supporters would call them racist; yet some of his supporters themselves, who seek to minimize or discount his black lineage, are just as troubled by the color of his skin and the reality of who he is as they are. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:39:41

Why do you consider "Hussein" a BAD word? This is a very proud Muslim name, and a name given to Senator Obama to honor his father and his heritage. What is BAD about it? Are Muslims too now included in your little BLACK book of racial intolerance?

I guess I should have known that for you, the only good names are Anglo-Saxon European "white" names, just like the only good candidates are Anglo-Saxon European white people! You seem to be a very bitter and naive person, and you really need to examine yourself. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:13:49

Apparently, they're not as annoyed by him as they were annoyed by Hillary when she tried to attack him on his comments in front of a Pennsylvania audience, and they began to groan so loudly that she could no longer even be heard! She didn't even have enough sense to change the subject, and the groans only grew louder! I guess these people will be switching to Obama! LOL posted 04/16/2008 at 14:58:26

Like there were a "lot of blacks" in Iowa and most of the other states in which he's won? It's obvious that the black vote alone is not carrying Senator Obama's campaign, but people who can't understand how a black candidate for president is beating his white opponent will use this amorphous black vote concept to satisfy their own attitude toward race and toward black people in general. In their eyes, it's not America who's embraced this black man; it's black people only who've embraced him, and if it wasn't for black people, he wouldn't be winning. Of course, they'll forget that at the beginning of the primaries, more than 50% of black Americans were supporting Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama was beating her even then! It's just difficult for people like rvme to accept that a black man can actually be the better candidate! posted 04/16/2008 at 14:50:46

56% of the "small town voters" polled were never going to vote for Senator Obama anyway, for reasons that most of us who are not afraid of the truth know! Therefore, the dynamics of the campaigns in Pennsylvania have not changed one iota, except that Senator Obama continues to gain support and to close the gap. posted 04/16/2008 at 14:35:24

Thank you. As Senator Obama has said, we generally have much more in common than we disagree on. And if you and I can agree on something like this, then we must be on the right track :) posted 04/16/2008 at 14:21:11

I assume you're speaking of Pastor Wright, and no, your post did not make this clear at all.

The Pastor's black and white, and gay and straight, congregation are building this home for him, in the tradition of many churches, particularly black churches, when their pastor retires. The money to build the home is from individual contributions from among the 8000 members of the church, and not from any church profits or programs. Obviously, the church members do not support Sean Hannity's misrepresentation of their pastor, and perhaps they're even doing this to make a statement to that effect! It's neither illegal, unethical or immoral, and it's a worthy way of giving back to someone who has given them forty incredible years of his life. posted 04/16/2008 at 14:16:03

Maybe you missed this, but for the last month, if not longer, it has been widely known that the "blue-collar" community or "small town voters" were not going to vote for Senator Obama ANYWAY. Not because of any comments he made, but because of who he is. And many of them are also supporting Senator Clinton, not because of her health-care plans, but because she's not Senator Obama! So the 56% who do not agree with him is not a surprise to anyone! Elitism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder; and if you see Senator Obama as someone who is looking down on people or suggesting that they do not have the potential to be every bit as smart as he is, then your perspective is obviously being guided by something in you, perhaps your own insecurities, because clearly, most Americans do not see this in the same way you do. posted 04/16/2008 at 14:01:48

Of all the reasons given for not voting for Senator Obama and voting for the Republican candidate, being fed up with the comments of ANONYMOUS Obama supporters is probably the most absurd! I notice that you said you have "other women friends who feel the same." So apparently, this is once again about gender! If this is what you call a responsible and mature attitude about the election of the President of the United States of America and the leader of the free world, perhaps you need to just sit this one out until you grow up and understand the seriousness of this election process. Maybe by then we will also have a credible woman candidate for president whom we can ALL support! posted 04/16/2008 at 13:47:52

"... she's consistently drawn the working class voters to her campaign."

Senator Clinton has drawn the unique "blue-collar" working class voters in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, but not the mainstream middle-class. Senator Obama's grassroots campaign is comprised of Americans from all economic classes across the board. To the contrary, Senator Clinton's campaign is being supported primarily by women who cannot see beyond having a woman for a president, wealthy contributors, and "blue-collar" workers, many of whom would never vote for Senator Obama under any circumstances!. posted 04/16/2008 at 13:36:09

I thouhgt I advised you to stop listening to Sean and Rush! It's not working! posted 04/16/2008 at 13:16:40

What? Who's building what?? posted 04/16/2008 at 13:15:38

As I read posts like your's, I'm reminded that many of Hillary's supporters reflect Hillary's attitude toward this election. She believes that she is entitled to the nomination, in spite of all of the things this campaign has revealed about both her character and her candidacy; and her supporters feel the same way. She also seems to feel that her nomination is more important than preserving the integrity of the Party and winning the general election in November. Apparently, her supporters feel the same way about this too. Though I once respected Senator Clinton and looked forward to voting for her if Senator Obama is not the nominee, both she and her candidacy have lost all credibility in my opinion. If she becomes the Democratic nominee, I will be deeply disappointed and I certainly will not want to vote for her. But I will nonetheless vote for the Democratic Party, because my loyalty to the candidate does not overshadow my loyalty to the Party or to the future of our country. It's unfortunate that Senator Clinton and her supporters, as Democrats, are loyal only to their own selfish interests. posted 04/16/2008 at 12:51:19

Michelle Obama said that President Clinton is a racist, and the media missed this too??? I keep missing all of these racist statements by the Obama campaign. BTW, Jesse Jackson is not an official member of Senator Obama's campaign, unlike Geraldine Ferraro, Gov. Rendell, Bob Johnson, President Clinton, etc. People, unrelated to their campaigns, have said a lot of things about both of them, including people on this blogsite ... but they have nothing to do with the candidates or their campaigns, and do not speak for the candidates or their campaigns. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:07:32

And Hillary's record of accomplishment is ... a failed health-care plan? Bosnia and sniper fire? Ireland? Negotiating important matters during her husband's presidency, even though she didn't have clearance to be in the room where the negotiations were taking place? Being a First Lady? So were Laura and Barbara Bush! Do their accomplishments as First Ladies make them credible presidential material? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:27:09

According to Mr. Coleman's article, and other articles or blogs from people who were there, the person who asked the question said that he would be going to Pennsylvania soon, and he asked Senator Obama to share with them some of his observations about the people in Pennsylvania. Senator Obama, still affected by the despair he witnessed in the "blue-collar" community, responded by trying to explain the hardship of the people who lived there. If he was asked about his inability to attract whites, it was not in the context that led to the comments that have become so controversial. Senator Obama did apologize for using the words that people found offensive; but why should he apologize for the substance of his comments? He was expressing compassion for a community that is suffering. What is there for him to apologize for? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:20:35

What was Bill Clinton doing when he called the same community "angry white people," and then went on to explain why? His words were clearly more personal and perhaps even more offensive than what Senator Obama said. Was Bill psycho-analyzing, and did that also reflect inexperience on his part as well? And as I recall, he was not speaking directly to Pennsylvanians when he said this, so was he talking about them behind their backs too? Why would Senator Obama possibly think that when speaking in a public event, before an audience of more than a hundred people, who had camcorders and cameras and tape-recorders and video phones, that his comments could be a "secret?"

He was neither "psycho-analyzing" the "blue-collar" community, nor talking about them behind their backs. He was making an observation in response to a question that he was asked, and he did so in a public forum. He just didn't realize that he would be judged by double standards. If Senator Obama had said what Bill Clinton said, I guess he would have been run out of town!!! posted 04/15/2008 at 19:02:33

I have been paying attention, but a lot still gets past me. I know that Senator Obama has responded strongly to the charges that he's unelectable, that he doesn't love America, that he's not as experienced as Senator Clinton and John McCain, that his speeches are "just words," etc., much of which came from Senator Clinton or her campaign surrogates. But I don't recall Senator Obama "smearing" Senator Clinton with personal attacks like these. It's true that he's attacked her on the issues, but nothing personal. But again, maybe I just missed it. posted 04/15/2008 at 18:48:29

Senator Clinton is an intelligent woman and very politically astute. As an intelligent woman, she knows exactly what Senator Obama was saying about the "blue-collar" community in Pennsylvania, beyond the words, "cling" and "bitter" and "guns and church." She's probably even more familiar with the cultural dynamics of that community than Senator Obama is, and knows of their suffering and their frustration and their inclination to cling to their traditions and to be less than open to outsiders. In other words, in spite of his clumsy use of words, she knows that everything Senator Obama said is true. As an astute politician, she also recognizes that "elite" is Republican taboo. She herself acknowleged that they used this against Gore and Kerry, fellow Democrats; so she has now chosen to use it against her Democratic opponent, even as she also knows that Senator Obama is no more "elite" than she is. In fact, as a multi-millionaire with a lifesyle of privilege far beyond anything Senator Obama has experienced, she should be familiar enough with what an elitist is to know that Senator Obama is not of her ilk. Senator Clinton knows what she's doing, and it's "slash and burn" all the way! posted 04/15/2008 at 18:40:31

I agree standforpeace. And what's worse is that Hillary doesn't care that she's doing this. Her strategy is to win the nomination, by any means necessary, and to destroy her opponent in the process ... unfortunately, her opponent is another Democrat and the likely Democratic nominee, which means that she doesn't care about the general election (if she's not the nominee herself), and therefore she doesn't care about the Party she represents. Senator Obama has tried to run a strong but respectful campaign on the issues; but almost every time he is sidetracked, it's because he's had to either respond to Hillary's personal attacks or to the Republican's personal attacks, which lately seems to be coming from the same source. Hillary may still win the nomination, but she will never, ever win the election, and her political career will never be the same again either. Both her legacy and Bill's legacy have been destroyed; but they have done this to themselves ... pulling the Party down with them. posted 04/15/2008 at 18:20:51

I think I missed it too!! Maybe if he/she can give just one example of Senator Obama calling Senator Clinton a racist, it would trigger my memory! Wow! It seems that this would have been pretty newsworthy, and it's amazing that the media must have missed it as well. posted 04/15/2008 at 17:51:21

To answer your questions ... no! posted 04/15/2008 at 03:11:15

You wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway. Get real! posted 04/15/2008 at 03:07:00

I truly wish you luck in securing your job.

I don't think Mayhill Fowler is an "objective" supporter of Senator Obama. If she had been objective, she would have written an objective report, and not just focus on that part of his speech that made her so uncomfortable that she felt she had to write about it. After reading several articles from others who were also there, it became apparent that Ms. Fowler omitted quite a bit of the context of the speech. Not just the words, but the tone of his comments and what he was attempting to convey, which the audience apparently received in a much different way than Ms. Fowler did. She did no more than what Sean Hannity did with Reverend Wright's soundbites, which were certainly not objective, nor supportive of Senator Obama. I too am critical of Senator Obama at times, so I do not expect that others will not find reason to be critical of him at times as well, and I welcome the opportunities to evaluate him as a candidate with a critical eye. But as a journalist, Ms. Mayhill did a disservice not only to Senator Obama, but to all of us, those who support him and those who do not. All we got was an opinion based on a very limited perspective, and because of that opinion and perspective, she has caused unwarranted and unnecessary damage to Obama's campaign. posted 04/15/2008 at 15:09:53

More often than not, when we think a person is speaking down to us, or looking down his nose to people, especially when we don't have a personal relationship with that person, then what we think is usually more about ourselves than about that person. I've read this sentiment on other posts, posts that coincidentally are written by Clinton supporters, and I think that what is so intimidating to these posters is that Senator Obama is highly intelligent and generally has a wonderful gift for speaking, something Senator Clinton is lacking. So they project their own feelings and insecurities, not only about themselves but also about Senator Clinton, onto Senator Obama, and then judge him, not for who he is, but for their distorted and self-created view of him. Senator Obama does not think that "he is God's gift to women and to the world." Some of his supporters may believe that, and perhaps you feel threatened by his attractiveness and appeal; but this too is coming from within you, not from anything he himself has done or said. You were going to vote for Senator Clinton anyway, so why not just support her for all the reasons you believe in her without making up unfounded criticism of Senator Obama to justify your feelings about him. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:51:39

But we haven't failed to recognize the beast itself ... that is Hillary Clinton! posted 04/15/2008 at 03:46:16

Right on saintswriter. It's sort of like when Bill said, "Well, it depends on what is, is ..." So this too depends on what "experience" is, and in Hillary's mind, and as she's convinced her supporters, no experience or make-believe experience is somehow still experience. One would think that someone with her vast "experience" could at least manage a campaign, but then again, when you're the "inevitable nominee," who needs experience? After all, she had Bill, and he certainly helped!!! And poor Obama! Here he is, the "no experience" candidate, winning more states than Hillary, more popular votes, more pledged delegates, and more and more super delegates every day! Obviously, his campaign is falling apart! More money, more organization, more stability among his staff ... he may as well just give up! Oh, but wait! He's winning!! posted 04/15/2008 at 03:43:10

Your comments would be accurate IF Senator Obama was speaking about rich people. However, he was speaking specifically about the "blue-collar" community in Pennsylvania, where people are not only not rich, but whose modest lives have been devastated by job loss and a failing infrastructure, leaving them with little hope and little to hold onto - or cling to - except their traditions, including faith and sportsmanship. HE didn't lump all people who go to church and hunt together ... YOU lumped them together. Nor does pointing out their hardship suggest that he thinks that he's above them! Instead of hearing/reading what he actually said, you've interpreted what he said into your own narrative, and then you hold him accountable for something that you'vecreated in your own mind! posted 04/15/2008 at 00:44:58