I'd Like To Thank Hillary For Opening The Door

OKEY.

"Now we can all start discussing how much her gender plays into the supportive strength she has been receiving"

Obama's ethnicity is no more or less an advantage than Hillary's marraige connection. Her initial foray into elective politics probably does not happen without Bill's list of doners.

"Every time she blows her top, she reveals her shrew.............."

You are just now noticing this?

I have to disagree she is playing the "race" card. In fact she will play every card she has been dealt in order to win the nomination. More importantly she will play every card she has even if it isn't true. She will "discard" whoever she has in one shot attacks which she can then distance herself from. Now I'm not going to say that Barack Obama's race has no influence on his appeal, but it is indeed a two edged sword. It is a part of a complex series of factors; his race, his youth, and his message. Barack has the aura of the reincarnation of John F. Kennedy, the political ideal of the Democrats in the same way that Reagan is to Republicans. In that sense it is the youth and the message that won the initial vote. Once that was won (among non African American voters) the race card flipped from "he's African American he can't win," to "he's an African American who can win." That flip helped his image both in the African American community and outside it. But if it was that easy to play the race card, he would have to campaign against the legacy of President Keys, not President Bush.

" I'm dearly hoping. that if Barack Obama gains the Democratic nomination, he will choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate"

She would serve her party and country better by staying in the Senate and running for majority leader, a position that clearly suits her strength.

Additionally, the democrats can ill afford to give up two senate seats if they hope to accomplish anything.

There have been few women candidates for President (I voted for one back in the 1960s) and even fewer black candidates. It takes a while for conventional political wisdom to learn how such candidates should campaign. Therefore, we get a variety of styles while the try to find out what works.

WM H - "Obama's ethnicity is no more or less an advantage than Hillary's marraige connection. "

I can't agree with that. Not that Hillary's marriage advantages aren't mighty, powerful and provide her with strong edges, but her additional gender advantage is what evens the field out in this comparison.

As the media continues to point out, Barack and Hillary share many of the same voter demographics. The most notable differences between the two are that he shows higher strength among black issue voters, whereas she shows higher strength among feminist voters. Among men and women of the other than black colors, they seem to be pretty evenly split.

And; No, I'm not just now noticing her capacity for shrewishness. I've been aware of that all along. It is, in fact, one of her strengths, as far as I am concerned. I am trying to point out that she should only be unleashing her shrew on her true adversaries (aka; those pig-headed Republicans who have been trying to turn our country into a fascist nation).

As for your second comment; you make several good points. Although I wonder why Hillary's and Barack's senate seats might not end up being filled by new Democrats, and thus keep the party ratios as is, I can certainly agree that Hillary would make a great majority leader.

Thanks for commenting.

oh

Christopher B. - You make some really great points. I'd like to point out that Barack and Hillary are both juggling double-edged swords. The ethnic and gender appeal that is carrying the two of them so strongly also cuts them each deeply. Some American voters will not be able to convince themselves to vote for a man who is not white or for a woman. The prejudice of sexism and racism are still deeply ingrained in too many Americans.



Larry M. - Indeed. And what we are seeing would seem to indicate that Barack is making better campaign choices than Hillary, since his campaign continues to grow steam while hers seems to falter and stumble again and again. I think where Barack succeeds over Hillary lies mostly in the fact that he has not been as divisive as she has chosen to be. He points without attacking, whereas she points and attacks. He can just disagree, whereas she seems to become disagreeable.

ooh, well put. I completely agree. I am a die-hard Hillary chick and I agree that race, gender, religion and a million other factors have always played a role in the nominations. We are what we are. Hill is a woman, Barack is half black, McCain is a good ole white boy. These are facts. I agree that Hill is at her best when she's appreciating what Barack brings to the Dems. I love that he's created buzz and appeals to many targets. But I too "scratch my head in emptiness trying to contemplate a future with him as President." Thanks for giving words to my ambivalence. I voted for Hillary in Tx, but I would be ok with Obama, just not as certain of where that would lead us.

I think that is what George W. Bush does, he smiles and just disagrees.

I believe the word "emptiness" is an accurate description of my impression of Obama too. I am dumbfounded by those that swoon in his presence and worse, I am appalled at how he seems to feed off the outlandish admiration as if see himself as some sort of "messiah."

Yeah, just who is Barak Obama...? I'm not a big gambler I suppose, too much at risk, but the more time passes, the more confused I get... and at this point, think his time should come later if at all?

I just as dumbfounded by people supporting Clinton. Her lies, meanness, her lack of any qualifications,( being the wife of a politician doesn't make her one.)
She have never ran a business, never been a teacher, never fought for our country, run a state, be Doctor, run a major city. Has she ever worked?

Very good comments Christopher B.

Hillary's problem is that many are catching on to her true nature - win at all costs. I was a supporter for a while, but have grown more and more fed up with her casual use of misrepresentation to manipulate the voters. I'm not naive. I understand that all politicians (including Obama) will cherry pick to emphasize their points. the problem is that she has gone way beyond cherry picking. She is actually trying to devalue him as a human being [for kicks, see Charles Krauthammer's column in the Washington Post today]. As pointed out in your article, she had a strong position that she has abandoned because she was losing ground to Obama. Her answer - change positions and attack rather than present a clearer message and try to inspire. Do we really want someone whose modus operandi is to divide and conquer rather than lead and inspire?

Oh yeah. The dream team. A creation that Hillary has latched on to not because it has viability, but because it plays to the fears some have about Obama's experience (fears that she has someone managed to suggest are problematic despite her own slightly overblown resume). Bottom line. Hillary would not pick Obama unless forced to by the party, but she likes to float the idea because she thinks it will get her a few more votes. Pure manipulation. Even she knows Obama would not accept it. Oh, and in case Hillary and others have fogotten - Obama is leading the race. Not by much, but with the rules the way they are for handing out delegates, she would have to kill the rest of the way out to pass him. So the real "Dream Team' question is whether Obama would ask Hillary to be the VP. Given the fact that she represents everything that is wrong with politics these days, it just aint gonna happen.

I really feel that Hillary Clinton isn't more qualified than Obama. Hillary states she did this or that and I feel that her resume is overstated. It's already has been called out in the media through the AP. Hillary Clinton should be forced to qualify her experience. I believe that when it's all said and done. Her claiming to be a vastly more experienced candidate will be nothing but pure misrepresentation and have her eating crow in the end.

Obama is winning by field goals and Clinton is making the case that only touch down counts, but what really matter is the score board and as it reads right now Obama's ahead. Hillary Cinton running as Barack's VP, she'll be the last person he'll pick.

"Among men and women of the other than black colors, they seem to be pretty evenly split."

Hillary beat Obama 2 to 1 among hispanics in TX. (and I think by similar margins in other border states). A recent newspaper column here in Houston attempted to explain this. One aspect that hadn't otherwise occured to me was that the hispanic oter is very comfortable with "dynasty politics" and that family dynasties are very common in the hispanic portion of this hemisphere. ( as an example, the recently elected president of Argentina is the wife of a previous president).

I on the other hand find this trend to be very disturbing. Bush, Clinton, Bush and possibly 8 more years of Clinton is prospect that disturbs me. 28 years with either a Bush or Clinton on the ballot does not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy.

Brian T. - Hillary's "history" is primarily written as an activist, or voice, for humanitarian issues. Although her length in years of serving in a political office may be few, her years of interacting with governmental powers are decades long. She is well established as a champion of the people.



Wm H. - That is an interesting thought; thanks for sharing it. As for dynasty politics, it would hardly be fair of me to be against Hillary in any part because the Bush Family has had a political dynasty in America. It is certainly not her fault that soe many of them have held offices. And there are no other Clintons in America's political history other than Bill. To be honest, I've always had the impression that Hillary was a good bug in his ear, regarding social forms and reforms for America, while he served.

And she and he are quite different. A Hillary presidency would really be nothing like the Bill presidency was. She is not as laid-back as he is/was.

I'd like to thank everyone for their comments.

I would rather have an Obama/Clinton ticket, than a Clinton/Obama ticket.

If Hillary were President, I think she would under use Barack in his VP spot. Whereas Obama as President would likely make best use of Hillary's abilities; to whatever level she would cooperate with.

As a middle-aged woman I wanted to vote for Hillary. What woman wouldn't see it as 'about time'? Unfortunately, Hillary is not the 'one'. Her platform, by the way, is hardly different from Barack's, and I like his inclusive approach much better. I also like the fact that he has been honorable throughout this campaign and still strong enough to defend himself against the slimey innuendo/attacks the Clintons have manipulated... always blaming their surrogates with only an occasional slip like, "No I don't think Obama is a Muslim... as far as I know..." They know full well that he is a practicing Christian. Not that it should matter... but let's get real. There are a lot of prejudiced people out there who don't like black men and don't like Muslims. It is sad, but if you are clouding the water with chum, the sharks will attack the person in the middle of that smelly stuff.

Barack has surrounded himself with people he respects, including his wife and daughter. Can we say that about Billary? I don't think so. Let Hillary go, Bill, and leave the dark side. Of course, I respect your right to your own opinion, but I would suggest you read some of the articles written about him by people who have known him for twenty years or more. He is exactly who he says he is.

We have a friend who went to Harvard with him and although she lost out when he won the presidency of the Harvard Law Review, she held no animosity toward him. Why? Because she thought he was the best man for the job. Now THAT is class.

Best to you, Bill, but again, look at his wife, Michelle. Do you think that woman would be with an idiot, a cad or a man who didn't fly right?

I wouldn't trust her as VP. Hell hath no fury like a wronged wife promised the presidency if she'll just hang tough. Would she have the patience to wait 8 more years? I don't think so.

Hillary Clinton is always going around talking about her experience. Fine and good she needs to qualify her experience to lead. If you look at running for president as applying for a job, then as a guideline 50% of the applicants resumes that are sent across your desk are over stated and 10% are out right lies. Barack Obama has also done a lot for vets across Illinois and the country. Both me and my brothers are vets and back Obama. My older brother is a Vietnam Vet and works as a out reach person to homeless vets for his VFW post and I'm American Legion. We never had Obama turn his back on us in Illinois or elsewhere. This one act below is one of many reasons we back Barack.



Dinner is served
Friday, May 13, 2005

A new Senate bill requires veterans hospitals to stop charging wounded soldiers for meals.

By Mark Benjamin
Salon.com

Thanks to some hungry G.I.'s and a U.S. senator, some wounded soldiers will no longer have to dig into their own pockets to pay for their meals at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed an amendment introduced by Illinois Democrat Barack Obama that will pay for them. It got added to an $82 billion emergency spending bill full of war money that President Bush is about to sign. The amendment applies to all military hospitals, not just Walter Reed.

Back in January, Salon reported that Walter Reed had begun to charge outpatient soldiers for their food. As Obama was preparing for an April 5 trip to visit wounded soldiers at the hospital, he came across the story, according to his staff. The senator was none too pleased and decided to ask the soldiers there about it.

He found that the soldiers were none too pleased, either.

"When our soldiers are recuperating from wounds received while defending us, the only thing that they should have to worry about is getting better, not about who's going to foot the bill for their meals," Obama said in statement Wednesday. Obama sits on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

After Salon's story, the American Legion also announced that they didn't think it was fair to ask those soldiers to pay for their meals. An official for the nation's largest vets group offered high praise for Obama's amendment.

"We are extremely delighted," said Mike Duggan, deputy director for national security and foreign relations at the American Legion in Washington. "Particularly for those young men and women who have been severely wounded or disabled in the war on terrorism. It is only fitting, proper and fair that they should not have to pay for inpatient or outpatient meals at military facilities."

Until Jan. 3, soldiers back from war who were recovering at Walter Reed were eating for free. (Those who are confined to hospital beds still do.) But since then, when wounded soldiers getting long-term therapy at Walter Reed walked -- or wheeled themselves -- into the chow hall, Walter Reed started asking them to pull out their wallets.

The hospital was also ignoring Pentagon regulations that were supposed to prevent soldiers from having to pay too much to eat. Because of the change, some wounded soldiers lost about $250 a month.

This is how the soldiers were getting pinched: Depending on where they live, soldiers have the option of receiving a monthly allowance for food; officers get $183.99 per month, while enlisted soldiers get $267.18 per month. In Army talk that money is called the Basic Allowance for Subsistence.

Because that's relatively little, the Pentagon caps the cost of eating on post to around $6 a day. Under that plan, a soldier knows he can always survive on that allowance if he sticks to eating in an Army chow hall. Walter Reed is an Army post with a chow hall.

After Jan. 3, the hospital started charging outpatients for the meals eaten in the dining hall there -- but did not cap the cost, which runs at about $17 a day. That means that an enlisted soldier getting $267.18 per month for food from the military was now losing $258 each month, the difference between what the Army is giving them and what Walter Reed is charging them to eat.

Obama's amendment simply gives the outpatient soldiers the same free meals the inpatient soldiers receive.

Many of the soldiers from Walter Reed to whom I spoke during the past year were hurt and angry when the Army policy changed on Jan. 3. A soldier at Walter Reed, who requested anonymity because he was commenting without the required permission of a public affairs officer, said that Obama's amendment would make a lot of young G.I.'s happy.

"That's great. That will help a lot of soldiers, especially the young ones," the officer told me. "It really affects every soldier that comes through there."

Hillary never had my vote. Obama has a frightening friend/mentor/pastor in Rev. Wright...and has had for 20 years. Can't trust him either, not if he listened to Wrights's racist talk for 20+ years.

If Obama's pastor is a racist, then the mostly white United Church of Christ (The United Church of Christ is mostly a white denomination, but Rev. Wright was pastor of one of UCC African American congregations) should have kicked him out. Rev. Wright has preaching what he has been for years and many a white visitor and white church leader heard him. The United Church of Christ never did anything to Rev. Wright because of the fact that the UCC leadership know that Dr. Wright is NOT a racist and they largely supported him themselves. Here is an article relating to Rev. Wright and note the last two paragraphs by the United Church of Christ. The article is dated 3/14/08. John H. Thomas quoted below is white.






Obama denounces pastor's 9/11 comments

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 20 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday denounced inflammatory remarks from his pastor, who has railed against the United States and accused its leaders of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism.

As video of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has widely aired on television and the Internet, Obama responded by posting a blog about his relationship with Wright and his church, Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, on the Huffington Post.

Obama wrote that he's looked to Wright for spiritual advice, not political guidance, and he's been pained and angered to learn of some of his pastor's comments for which he had not been present. A campaign spokesman said later that Wright was no longer on Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee, without elaborating.

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama said. "I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue."

In a sermon on the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Wright suggested the United States brought on the attacks.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

He also gave a sermon in December comparing Obama to Jesus, promoting his candidacy and playing down Clinton.

Questions about Obama's religious beliefs have dogged him throughout his candidacy. He's had to fight against false Internet rumors suggesting he's really a Muslim intent on destroying the United States, and now his pastor's words uttered nearly seven years ago have become an issue.

Obama wrote on the Huffington Post that he never heard Wright say any of the statements that are "so contrary to my own life and beliefs," but they have raised legitimate questions about the nature of his relationship with the pastor and the church.

He explained that he joined Wright's church nearly 20 years ago. He said he knew Wright as a former Marine and respected biblical scholar who lectured at seminaries across the country.

"Reverend Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life," he wrote. "... And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn."

He said Wright's controversial statements first came to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them. Because of his ties to the 6,000-member congregation church — he and his wife were married there and their daughters baptized — Obama decided not to leave the church.

Obama also has credited Wright with delivering a sermon that he adopted as the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

"With Reverend Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good," he wrote.

Also Friday, the United Church of Christ issued a 1,400-word statement defending Wright and his "flagship" congregation. John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ's president, lauded Wright's church for its community service and work to nurture youth. Other church leaders praised Wright for speaking out against homophobia and sexism in the black community.

"It's time for all of us to say no to these attacks and to declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends," Thomas said in the statement.

___

AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski in Denver contributed to this report.

___

Hillary as vice? I sincerely doubt, considering her demonstrated disdain for anyone that gets in her way, that Clinton would be a good choice. Public persona is not in any way the real Hillary, even as her inner shrew has emerged. She's all that, and a whole lot more. Obama/Edwards or Obama/ Biden, or Obama/Richardson or even Obama/Dodd have a lot better ring to them.

Frankly, I don't put much stock in anything preachers preach - they're just going for the passion factor. But some of his remarks have been inflammatory (like all cases, 99% of his sermons are non-controversial, but the 1% are really really bad) . Today Obama completely condemned those remarks.

The issue here isn't whether supporters say idiotic and/or inflammatory things. It's about what the candidates say and do. Having said that, part of what the candidates do is control the message. Certainly some advisors go rogue, but the Clintons have way too much experience (as Hillary constantly points out) in the art of Washington attack politics. They have been on the pointed end in the past, and apparently they learned well because now they are jabbing and twisting to manipulate and game the system. Playing on fears and prejudices - which unfortunately still exist - instead of winning on the merits of her capabilites (of which she has many) is a sign of a weak leader. Since the lead in to the South Carolina primary she and her campaign have tried to bring Obama down to her level. Luckily he refuses to stoop that low. Notice that while he attacks her positions and parries her personal attacks, he never attacks her personally. This is a sign of a good leader. This is a sign of a change leader. This is a change election.

Everything you say is true. I too have been a Hillary fan, but the long battle with Obama has left both of them wounded when they need to be strong. And I have recently looked at John McCain. He is emerging as my favorite candidate as Hillary's star fades.

Guess I watch politics from a different set of rose tinted glasses. Obama's long time friendship with a known unsavory character who now has been indicted. The whole real estate deal with this man's wife. Of course, we now have the Jeremiah Wright situation, Obama claiming a bigoted racist spewing hate as a mentor...I find that very disturbing, find Obama's unwillingness to break his ties with this man even more troublesome.

Looks like Wright is Obama's Ferraro..... not a racist eh?

"(CNN) -- A Chicago minister who delivered a fiery sermon about Sen. Hillary Clinton having an advantage over Sen. Barack Obama in the presidential race because she is white is no longer a part of the Obama campaign.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee, campaign sources told CNN."

If any of you wish to explore the Reverend Wright thing, try visiting the thread "The Controversy: Obama's Minister and McCain's Endorsement by Rev. John Hagee".
Note that this is somewhat overblown, and note also that John Hagee, whom mcCain thanks for his endorsement, makes Rev. Wright look like a saint.

I dont think the ministers should get involved at all. We should vote on the candidates becausde we think they can do the job of running our country. I am voting for Hillary. That is it.

You dims are a fickle bunch. It will be interesting to see how much more comes out about Obama after Hillary is beat.

All indications to the contrary aside, I now think the Republicans are going to retain the White House, even though they will likely lose badly in Senatorial and Congressional races.

Why?

1- Clinton and Obama are not only beating each other up and wasting valuable resources (money and volunteer hours) but also providing the Republicans with campaign fodder to use against them.

2- Republicans want Obama to win because they believe, and rightly so, that he will be easier to defeat in November. Hillary Clinton's negatives are already too well known so no amount of trumpetting will elicit anything more than a yawn and a "yeah, I knew that" response from Americans who already love or hate her. Obama, who has benefitted from very soft handling by the predominantly right-wing mainstream media, will be savaged once the nomination is his. Those media outlets who are presently loathe to criticize him will suddenly be asking a lot of tough questions they are currently keeping in reserve (like: just how much drug usage was he talking about in his autobiography?; just how much Muslim influence was there in Barack Hussein Obama's upbringing?). Some group like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" will arise, backed by the same money that funds Republican campaigns, and paint Obama as a crack-dealing Muslim who will be selling dime-bags off the White House lawn.

3- The same Diebold voting machines that have been stealing elections going back to the 1998 mid-terms are still in place, and more of them, still protected by copyright laws against any scrutiny of how they tally votes and still owned, operated and serviced by Republican supporting businessmen.

You heard it here firts.

You may be right Rory, The Democrats are very capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Clinton and Obama's wrangling is hurting the party more than the chaces of either getting the nomination.

Funny how so many people think so differently.

Don't ya just love it when people say Hilary and Barak are mostly the same on the issues, and then turn around and say they don't understand what Barak stands for. LOL

And Rory, about #2, you sure couldn't tell by Fox News that they want Obama with all this trash talk they're doing about him now in relation to the truthful yet controversial Rev Wright. What gets me is that Obama is the least radical of all the remaining candidates, he won't even engage in Hilary's slug fest, and never blows his stack like McCain. First they say he's too layed back and needs to be tough, then they claim he is a radical just like his Pastor. LOL

The funniest comment was the one where Obama was compared to Bush. I spewed my soda all over the screen.

Couldn't help but notice the use of the word "shrew" in both this article and the comments. When applied to humans it is virtually if not always a derogatory term that refers to a female. Ever heard of a male being called a shrew? If so it was probably in reference to a little rodent of the same name that was of the male gender. The use of such gender biased terms as shrew, cackle and shrieking has been all to prevalent in this campaign and reveal the degree of unacknowledged gender bias that exists in this county among both males and females.

That women find the use of such terms acceptable is even more distressing to me than its use by males. As Shakespeare so humorously tried to convey a shew is to be tamed to become subservient to a male. Is that how women who use this term see their own gender? If so the women's lib movement needs to be revived with emphasis on getting women not to engage in the putting down of their own gender

Rory M., BITE YOUR TONGUE!!!!

I was a Hillary supporter until her campaign decided to go so negative for so long. The more negative she goes the less appealing she appears to me.

Carol: I couldn't agree with you more. If we were discussing a man, he would be strong willed, not shewish. He would be assertive not bitchy. A woman shrieks, a man roars. A man is driven, a woman pushy. A man might be hot tempered but never shewish now would he? A man plays politics, a woman is manipulative. A man is in control, a woman controlling. And so it goes. There are really few positive terms for powerful women.

True, Carolyn, but men can also be classified as argumentative, sarcastic, and many other non-positive adjectives also. With the way that the campaigns are going, I too think we've got a good chance of having another Republican president in the white house.

No, no, no. Not another four years of Bushco rule through the personage of "sold his soul to me" McBush. Those of you even with a single progressive bone in your body, no matter who gets the nomination, McBush is not an option.

Did you know that this article is featured on Gather's homepage? Congratulations and here's a 10 rating!

This is such an ongoing battle, that it is amazing to read the past comments and see how much has changed in a few days. The Rev. Wright story dominated the news over the weekend and he is now Obama's "former"pastor. It would not be such an issue, except that Obama protrays himself as a the great uniter, yet he belongs to a church that has som every hateful messages. I saw several comments from Republican strategist saying they would have no problem using the YouTube videos of Rev. Wright and reminding voters this guy married Obama and baptized his children before being banished as his "former" pastor. Paste the hate America quote from the pastor with the "ashamed of America" quotes from his wife, and it is a propaganda bonanza for the Republicans. Anyone that thinks Obama will easily beat McCain, needs to rethink.

To be honest, I don't quite understand why Obama is being held for things his pastor said? Do they have some sort of symbiotic relationship in which Obama controls the guy's behavior? Don't get me wrong, I think the pastor is a hate-monger and everything a good Christian is not supposed to be, but that has nothing to do with Obama. I mean, were I to attend a church where the pastor was later found to be a child molester, would that make me responsible?

It's been recently suggested to me that Senator Clinton is suffering from Giuliani-itis. The more she talks, the less people like her.

I like it when the candidates talk about themselves and their own plans with no reference or comparison to each other('s)....bearing in mind that fateful disease - Giuliani-itis.

Elizabeth Madrigal - Thank you for commenting. I am taking your thoughts under serious advisement.



Rory M. - Very Insightful!!

Thanks for letting me hear it here firts. :-)



Rosa See Ya - I'm not sure who you are talking to. I did my best to point out that the fact that they are almost the same on issues does not mean that they will be the same in method or effectiveness. Hillary's methods and possible effectiveness are more apparent to me than Barack's.



Carol LeHane said: "Ever heard of a male being called a shrew?"


I have to answer, Nope. I know that the proper descriptor for the same type of behavior from a male, would require referring to them as a prick, a dick, a lout, or a brute.

My term was gender accurate, not gender biased. This article would have been poorly served if I had exercised gender blindness, since its purpose was to address the issues of race and gender advantages.

? f å i t h ? - Yup, I did know. Thanks. And thanks for the rating.



Linda G. - If the preaching of the minister of Barack's church bothers people so much, then perhaps we need to start investigating the minister's of every candidate's churches; including every single church they ever attended since birth. After all, there is no telling what they might have heard, or been taught, that might have influenced their true, inner compass in some negative, racist, sexist, elitist, extremist, or isolationist way.

Lord knows we can't just judge a person according to their own actions and words. We have to judge every individual according to the words and actions of every person they have ever come in contact with.



Diana Raabe - Hillary suffers from something far worse than Giuliani-itis. She seems to be suffering from some plain, old-fashioned senior-itis. She "knows" that she is the best candidate for the job; and she seems supremely frustrated by the fact that not everyone is seeing things that way.

E. M. - Thanks for the "1" vote. I'm glad to hear that you had such a strong and substantial reason for awarding it to me.

I find it difficult to believe anyone could write an article like this, it boggles.

Oh for the Love of God, Now you're comparing him to a child molester? Only you Kaye.

" I mean, were I to attend a church where the pastor was later found to be a child molester, would that make me responsible?"

If the Pastor were molesting a child before your very eyes for a twenty year period, yeah... that would make you responsible. You didn't think this out very well, Carol.

I have no problem with having a woman as a president. Just not her. I couldn't take listening to that shrill, and you're right, shrewish, voice.

Any Democrat would be better than another term with a Republican in charge. I'm for Obama myself. I don't think that I want Hillary as his VP though.