Democratic Party position:  Stealing elections is wrong.

Clinton philosophy: Bush did it in 2000. They did it. So can

Democratic Party position: Michigan and Florida will be suspended of their delegates for moving up their primaries. Candidates are asked to remove their names from the ballots and not campaign there.

Clinton philosophy: If I win in Michigan in Florida, the rules I agreed to must not count.

Democratic Party position: States can choose for themselves how their primaries will work and if they should use a caucus system.

Clinton philosophy: Only states with caucuses that favor me are caucusing democratically. The rest are insignificant and undemocratic.

Democratic Party position: Embrace the 50-state initiative. Every vote counts. Every state counts. There are many electoral paths that mathematically can lead to a national win.

Clinton Philosophy: Only states that vote for Hillary in the primary count. Only people who vote for Hillary count. There is only one electoral path to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Democratic Party position: Clinton and Obama campaigns must stop slinging mud at each other.

Clinton Philosophy: "Tonya Harding" and "Kitchen Sink" strategies must be used to "knee-cap" the opponent.

Democratic Party position: John McCain must not become President of the United States of America.

Clinton Philosophy: If not Hillary, only John McCain fit for office.

Democratic Party position: The nomination will be decided before the convention.

Clinton Philosophy:  We must wage this war for 100 years, 1000 years, whatever it takes.

This certainly won't be my most intelligent post, but all looped up on cold medicine the fact that there's a lot of race in this race suddenly makes sense.  Geraldine makes racist comments, then accuses the Obama campaign of making her out to be a racist and making the race about race.

Nobody can find any comments from Obama, other than him saying that he doesn't believe she's a racist.

Geraldine is an old lady now. She's not hip to the internet and grass roots support.  She's got a distorted view of race and society because it's all so modern to her.  She thinks that freelance supporters represent Obama's campaign, because back in her day, that's how things worked.

She's not a racist. She's old and out of touch.

I've only seen whispering of the issue, but I feel since it's a constitutional issue, it should be discussed more.

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was and is not a part of the United States of America.

The Constitution is clear, that to be eligible as President you must be a natural born citizen, that is someone born in the United States of America.  You must also be 35 years old, and have resided in the country for the last 14 years.

The Constitution allows for only one exception:  If you were born before the United States Constitution was ratified.

By Constitutional standards, McCain is ineligible to be President.  Sure, you may say that it's outdated.  Sure, you may say that McCain's parents were US citizens.  But, you can not say that the Constitution's language isn't clear on this subject.  While it may be politics d'jour to ignore the Constitution, it is still the supreme law of our nation.

The Act of Congress that Mccain's campaign said got him around this (5th Congress, March 26th 1790), but found that this act was repealed by the same Congress, January 29th, 1795, RE-defining such children as just American citizens (not natural-born, as required for Pres. by the Constitution), and that this act was re-repealed April 14th, 1802 by the 6th Congress, keeping the same definition of foreign-born US citizens.


Others have proposed a new act of Congress to allow McCain the Presidency. Yet, ONLY an amendment to the Constitution would be the legal route to allow someone who was not born in the US to become President.

Shouldn't the Republicans be forced to address this now?

In reply to the Obama is a war monger thread...

While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton's support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and
her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration.

Indeed, there's every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.

For example, rather than challenge President George W. Bush's dramatic increases in military spending, Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years. At the end of the Cold War, many Democrats were claiming that the American public would be able to benefit from a "peace dividend" resulting from dramatically-reduced military spending following the demise of the Soviet Union.

Clinton, however, has called for dramatic increases in the military budget, even though the United States, despite being surrounded by two oceans and weak friendly neighbors, already spends as much on its military as all the rest of the world combined.

Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate - Democrat or Republican - and her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as "Mama Warbucks." She has
even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years. Pentagon officials and defense contractors have given Senator Clinton high marks for listening to their concerns, promoting their products and leveraging her ties to the Pentagon,
comparing her favorably to the hawkish former
Washington Senator "Scoop" Jackson and other pro-military Democrats of earlier eras.

Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, she called for a "tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy." Similarly, when her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Barack Obama expressed his willingness
to meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or other foreign leaders with whom the United States has differences, she denounced him for being "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Senator Clinton appears to have a history of advocating the blunt instrument of military force to deal with complex international problems. For example, she was one of the chief advocates in her husband's inner circle for the 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to attempt to
resolve the Kosovo crisis.

Though she had not indicated any support for the Kosovar Albanians' nonviolent campaign against Serbian oppression which had been ongoing since she had first moved into the White House six years earlier, she was quite eager for the United States to go to war on behalf of the militant Kosovo
Liberation Army which had just recently come to prominence. Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice reveals how, when President Bill Clinton and others correctly expressed concerns that bombing Serbia would likely lead to a dramatic worsening of the human rights situation by provoking the Serbs into engaging in full-scale ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, Hillary Clinton successfully
pushed her husband to bomb that country anyway.
She has also defended the 1998 U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines, falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Clinton went well beyond the broad consensus that the United States should go after al-Qaeda cells and their leadership to declare that any country providing any "aid and comfort" to al-Qaeda "will now face the wrath of our country." When Bush echoed these words the following week in his nationally-televised speech, she declared "I'll stand behind Bush for a long time to come."

She certainly did. Clinton voted to authorize the president with wide-ranging authority to attack Afghanistan and was a strong supporter of the bombing campaign against that country, which resulted in more civilian deaths than the 9/11 attacks against the United States that had prompted them.

Despite recent pleas by the democratically elected Afghan president Harmid Karzai that the ongoing U.S. bombing and the overemphasis on aggressive counter-insurgency operations was harming efforts to deal with the resurgence of violence by the Taliban and other radical groups, Clinton argues that our "overriding immediate objective of our foreign policy" toward Afghanistan "must be to significantly step up our military engagement."

Particularly disturbing has been Senator Clinton's attitudes regarding nuclear issues. For example, when Senator Obama noted in August that the use of nuclear weapons -traditionally seen as a deterrent against other nuclear states - was not appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton rebuked
his logic by claiming that "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Senator Clinton has also shown little regard for the danger from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries,
opposing the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions challenging the nuclear weapons programs of such U.S allies as Israel, Pakistan and India. Not only does
she support unconditional military aid - including nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters - to these countries, she even voted to end restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

She has a very different attitude, however, regarding even the possibility of a country the United States does not support
obtaining nuclear weapons some time in the future. For example, Senator Clinton insists that the prospect of Iran joining its three Southwest Asian neighbors in developing
nuclear weapons "must be unacceptable to the entire world" since challenging the nuclear monopoly of the United States and its allies would somehow "shake the foundation of global security to its very core."

She refuses to support the proposed nuclear weapons-free zone for the Middle East, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 687, nor does she support a no-first use
nuclear policy, both of which could help resolve the nuclear standoff. Indeed, she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same
treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn't like.

Senator Clinton also criticized the Bush administration's decision to include China, Japan and South Korea in talks regarding North Korea's nuclear program and to allow
France, Britain and Germany to play a major role in negotiations with Iran, claiming that instead of taking "leadership to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists … we have outsourced over
the last five years our policies." In essence, as president, Hillary Clinton would be more unilateralist and less prone to work with other nations than the Bush administration
on such critical issues as non-proliferation.

In Latin America, Senator Clinton argues that the Bush administration should take a more aggressive stance against the rise of left-leaning governments in the hemisphere.
Regarding Israel, Senator Clinton has taken a consistently right-wing position, undermining the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates seeking a just peace. She’s spoken freely about military action against Syria and Iran, often repeating Bush administration talking points that have been proven false. I could go on and on, but I’m nearly out of space.

Hillary Clinton is no progressive. She’s a war mongering cash cow for the military industrial complex. Don’t let her fool you.

This is in reply to the Obama is a Warmonger thread:

While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton's support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and
her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration.

Indeed, there's every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.

For example, rather than challenge President George W. Bush's dramatic increases in military spending, Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years. At the end of the Cold War, many Democrats were claiming that the American public would be able to benefit from a "peace dividend" resulting from dramatically-reduced military spending following the demise of the Soviet Union.

Clinton, however, has called for dramatic increases in the military budget, even though the United States, despite being surrounded by two oceans and weak friendly neighbors, already spends as much on its military as all the rest of the world combined.

Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate - Democrat or Republican - and her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as "Mama Warbucks." She has
even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years. Pentagon officials and defense contractors have given Senator Clinton high marks for listening to their concerns, promoting their products and leveraging her ties to the Pentagon,
comparing her favorably to the hawkish former
Washington Senator "Scoop" Jackson and other pro-military Democrats of earlier eras.

Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, she called for a "tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy." Similarly, when her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Barack Obama expressed his willingness
to meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or other foreign leaders with whom the United States has differences, she denounced him for being "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Senator Clinton appears to have a history of advocating the blunt instrument of military force to deal with complex international problems. For example, she was one of the chief advocates in her husband's inner circle for the 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to attempt to
resolve the Kosovo crisis.

Though she had not indicated any support for the Kosovar Albanians' nonviolent campaign against Serbian oppression which had been ongoing since she had first moved into the White House six years earlier, she was quite eager for the United States to go to war on behalf of the militant Kosovo
Liberation Army which had just recently come to prominence. Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice reveals how, when President Bill Clinton and others correctly expressed concerns that bombing Serbia would likely lead to a dramatic worsening of the human rights situation by provoking the Serbs into engaging in full-scale ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, Hillary Clinton successfully
pushed her husband to bomb that country anyway.
She has also defended the 1998 U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines, falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Clinton went well beyond the broad consensus that the United States should go after al-Qaeda cells and their leadership to declare that any country providing any "aid and comfort" to al-Qaeda "will now face the wrath of our country." When Bush echoed these words the following week in his nationally-televised speech, she declared "I'll stand behind Bush for a long time to come."

She certainly did. Clinton voted to authorize the president with wide-ranging authority to attack Afghanistan and was a strong supporter of the bombing campaign against that country, which resulted in more civilian deaths than the 9/11 attacks against the United States that had prompted them.

Despite recent pleas by the democratically elected Afghan president Harmid Karzai that the ongoing U.S. bombing and the overemphasis on aggressive counter-insurgency operations was harming efforts to deal with the resurgence of violence by the Taliban and other radical groups, Clinton argues that our "overriding immediate objective of our foreign policy" toward Afghanistan "must be to significantly step up our military engagement."

Particularly disturbing has been Senator Clinton's attitudes regarding nuclear issues. For example, when Senator Obama noted in August that the use of nuclear weapons -traditionally seen as a deterrent against other nuclear states - was not appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton rebuked
his logic by claiming that "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Senator Clinton has also shown little regard for the danger from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries,
opposing the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions challenging the nuclear weapons programs of such U.S allies as Israel, Pakistan and India. Not only does
she support unconditional military aid - including nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters - to these countries, she even voted to end restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

She has a very different attitude, however, regarding even the possibility of a country the United States does not support
obtaining nuclear weapons some time in the future. For example, Senator Clinton insists that the prospect of Iran joining its three Southwest Asian neighbors in developing
nuclear weapons "must be unacceptable to the entire world" since challenging the nuclear monopoly of the United States and its allies would somehow "shake the foundation of global security to its very core."

She refuses to support the proposed nuclear weapons-free zone for the Middle East, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 687, nor does she support a no-first use
nuclear policy, both of which could help resolve the nuclear standoff. Indeed, she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same
treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn't like.

Senator Clinton also criticized the Bush administration's decision to include China, Japan and South Korea in talks regarding North Korea's nuclear program and to allow
France, Britain and Germany to play a major role in negotiations with Iran, claiming that instead of taking "leadership to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists … we have outsourced over
the last five years our policies." In essence, as president, Hillary Clinton would be more unilateralist and less prone to work with other nations than the Bush administration
on such critical issues as non-proliferation.

In Latin America, Senator Clinton argues that the Bush administration should take a more aggressive stance against the rise of left-leaning governments in the hemisphere.
Regarding Israel, Senator Clinton has taken a consistently right-wing position, undermining the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates seeking a just peace. She’s spoken freely about military action against Syria and Iran, often repeating Bush administration talking points that have been proven false. I could go on and on, but I’m nearly out of space.

Hillary Clinton is no progressive. She’s a war mongering cash cow for the military industrial complex. Don’t let her fool you.

This is in reply to the Obama is a Warmonger thread:

While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton's support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and
her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration.

Indeed, there's every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.

For example, rather than challenge President George W. Bush's dramatic increases in military spending, Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years. At the end of the Cold War, many Democrats were claiming that the American public would be able to benefit from a "peace dividend" resulting from dramatically-reduced military spending following the demise of the Soviet Union.

Clinton, however, has called for dramatic increases in the military budget, even though the United States, despite being surrounded by two oceans and weak friendly neighbors, already spends as much on its military as all the rest of the world combined.

Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate - Democrat or Republican - and her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as "Mama Warbucks." She has
even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years. Pentagon officials and defense contractors have given Senator Clinton high marks for listening to their concerns, promoting their products and leveraging her ties to the Pentagon,
comparing her favorably to the hawkish former
Washington Senator "Scoop" Jackson and other pro-military Democrats of earlier eras.

Clinton has also demonstrated a marked preference for military confrontation over negotiation. In a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, she called for a "tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy." Similarly, when her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination Senator Barack Obama expressed his willingness
to meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or other foreign leaders with whom the United States has differences, she denounced him for being "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Senator Clinton appears to have a history of advocating the blunt instrument of military force to deal with complex international problems. For example, she was one of the chief advocates in her husband's inner circle for the 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to attempt to
resolve the Kosovo crisis.

Though she had not indicated any support for the Kosovar Albanians' nonviolent campaign against Serbian oppression which had been ongoing since she had first moved into the White House six years earlier, she was quite eager for the United States to go to war on behalf of the militant Kosovo
Liberation Army which had just recently come to prominence. Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice reveals how, when President Bill Clinton and others correctly expressed concerns that bombing Serbia would likely lead to a dramatic worsening of the human rights situation by provoking the Serbs into engaging in full-scale ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, Hillary Clinton successfully
pushed her husband to bomb that country anyway.
She has also defended the 1998 U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which had provided that impoverished African country with more than half of its antibiotics and vaccines, falsely claiming it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden.

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Clinton went well beyond the broad consensus that the United States should go after al-Qaeda cells and their leadership to declare that any country providing any "aid and comfort" to al-Qaeda "will now face the wrath of our country." When Bush echoed these words the following week in his nationally-televised speech, she declared "I'll stand behind Bush for a long time to come."

She certainly did. Clinton voted to authorize the president with wide-ranging authority to attack Afghanistan and was a strong supporter of the bombing campaign against that country, which resulted in more civilian deaths than the 9/11 attacks against the United States that had prompted them.

Despite recent pleas by the democratically elected Afghan president Harmid Karzai that the ongoing U.S. bombing and the overemphasis on aggressive counter-insurgency operations was harming efforts to deal with the resurgence of violence by the Taliban and other radical groups, Clinton argues that our "overriding immediate objective of our foreign policy" toward Afghanistan "must be to significantly step up our military engagement."

Particularly disturbing has been Senator Clinton's attitudes regarding nuclear issues. For example, when Senator Obama noted in August that the use of nuclear weapons -traditionally seen as a deterrent against other nuclear states - was not appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton rebuked
his logic by claiming that "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

Senator Clinton has also shown little regard for the danger from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries,
opposing the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions challenging the nuclear weapons programs of such U.S allies as Israel, Pakistan and India. Not only does
she support unconditional military aid - including nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters - to these countries, she even voted to end restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

She has a very different attitude, however, regarding even the possibility of a country the United States does not support
obtaining nuclear weapons some time in the future. For example, Senator Clinton insists that the prospect of Iran joining its three Southwest Asian neighbors in developing
nuclear weapons "must be unacceptable to the entire world" since challenging the nuclear monopoly of the United States and its allies would somehow "shake the foundation of global security to its very core."

She refuses to support the proposed nuclear weapons-free zone for the Middle East, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 687, nor does she support a no-first use
nuclear policy, both of which could help resolve the nuclear standoff. Indeed, she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same
treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn't like.

Senator Clinton also criticized the Bush administration's decision to include China, Japan and South Korea in talks regarding North Korea's nuclear program and to allow
France, Britain and Germany to play a major role in negotiations with Iran, claiming that instead of taking "leadership to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists … we have outsourced over
the last five years our policies." In essence, as president, Hillary Clinton would be more unilateralist and less prone to work with other nations than the Bush administration
on such critical issues as non-proliferation.

In Latin America, Senator Clinton argues that the Bush administration should take a more aggressive stance against the rise of left-leaning governments in the hemisphere.
Regarding Israel, Senator Clinton has taken a consistently right-wing position, undermining the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates seeking a just peace. She’s spoken freely about military action against Syria and Iran, often repeating Bush administration talking points that have been proven false. I could go on and on, but I’m nearly out of space.

Hillary Clinton is no progressive. She’s a war mongering cash cow for the military industrial complex. Don’t let her fool you.

By her garden, or how she attends to her plants, we know she has no ethics. http://youtube.com/watch?v=yBmake0akGw&feature=related

By how she manages her home's finances, we know she has no ethics.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bIf84llCRPc http://youtube.com/watch?v=W05NRa-l1ls http://youtube.com/watch?v=D-pRInzalmU

By how she spies on her neighbors, we know she has no ethics.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=y5ibCSS7O3I

By how she manages her house, we know she has no ethics. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JkKdJoWG3qQ

...and so I must deduct that she has no ethics, and defer to former, former President Ford http://youtube.com/watch?v=q8h-yr-reHQ&feature=related

I'm a Democrat, not a neo-con. I support Obama, not Clinton. I still believe that both Clintons had a role in BBCI, and will never accept them as Democrats because of that.

Many have tried to paint Barack Obama as a Muslim. While there is nothing wrong with Islam, the man is clearly a Christian.  While his opponent, Hillary Clinton, may have tried to blur the lines of reality on 60 Minutes last week about his faith, how he has run his campaign proves what a good Christian Barack Obama truly is.

In the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

A parallel version is offered in the Sermon on the Plain in the Gospel of Luke:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

Barack Obama has been the target of many personal attacks in his bid for the Presidency.  His religion, patriotism, ethics and self worth has been attacked by Hillary Rodham Clinton and her supporters.  Barack Obama has kept his campaign positive and on issues of policy.  He has turned the other cheek. 

 

Unlike his opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama was very gracious last night.  He congratulated Clinton on her wins.  Clinton has not congratulated Obama on any of his wins throughout his long 13 State winning streak.

Matthew 7:12 says:
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

So, Clinton has invited the media to look into all facets of her life, which they have not done.  They have not reported on the spike in her personal wealth that has occurred since she’s been a Senator, she has not released her tax returns to the public. She has not released documents of her time as first lady. She is the largest recipient of funding from the Health Insurance and Military Industrial Complex lobbies in history.  By criticizing the media and Obama, she has invited public scrutiny.

But Obama should not change the positive tone of his campaign.  He should back it up with his religious beliefs in Christianity.  He should exclaim proudly that he is running his campaign the way he is because he believes it would be un-Christian to campaign the way Clinton has. He should follow up by saying that he is not judging her, that he hopes she can find peace with God after the campaign, and that he has faith that she can walk in Christ’s path if she works on it.  “God loves you Hillary, God loves America. Yes, we can be more Christ-like.”

Not only is Obama clearly not a radical follower of Islam, but he is not a radical Christian. He seems to be a man who understands his faith and leads by it.  His pragmatic yet progressive record as a community organizer, constitutional lawyer, State Senator, Senator and Presidential campaign all back up the moral ethics religious scholars say that Christianity should embrace.

Jesus issues four ringing commands: love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who maltreat you. He then rejects a culture of violence characterized by a tit-for-tat mentality and proposes instead a strategy of breaking the cycle of evil. Again the command is repeated, love your enemy and do good. Why? The command is rooted in the very nature of God, who is “kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.” Whereas Matthew follows this exhortation with the statement, “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect,” Luke writes: “Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful,” and only then will you be sons and daughters of God. Love of enemies is the defining characteristic of God’s family.

We know Christ’s teachings mostly from the gospels of the Bible, as supposedly by Christ’s disciples.  Mathew’s Christ gives us broad statements of ethics and moral standards. Luke’s Jesus does not proclaim ethereal ideals, but lives what he proclaims. The Lukan Jesus eats with and reaches out to those Pharisees who oppose him, and gives of himself to those who beg for healing or forgiveness. Only in Luke does Jesus, at the moment of his arrest, heal the wounded servant of the high priest, while calling for an end to any violent resistance (22:50); and the dying Jesus prays, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (23:34).

Obama should start using scripture to exemplify his campaign standards and contrast them to the tactics of the Clinton camp.  I think that such a method could help him combat her dirty politics, as well as the unfounded questions about his religion.

In closing, let me note that I am not certain that I myself am a Christian. I’m a student of theology who was raised by Christians. While I strive to live my life with the ethics I’ve learned from a loving interpretation of Christianity, I am flawed. Furthermore, I question the possibility of a God, believe deeply in science, and feel it would be hypocritical to say that I am of any faith, as I do not exhibit it.  I also find value in many other religions.  It is not my motive here to preach Christianity in hopes of conversion or judgment.  I only wish to offer my view of how Barack Obama has exemplified his faith, more so than his opponent, and how I believe that he could speak to people so that they realized the same.

With Clinton's slight margin of win Tuesday, there will be much to be said about the tactics of this campaign.  Many will be calling for Obama to start playing as dirty as Clinton has.  I hope that he does not.  I hope that he sticks to his moral high ground, and explains to the public why he feels it is important to do so.

That's right fight fans. Mean Gene Oakerlund's live with Hillary "Rowdy" Clinton who's got some tough words for Barack "Superfly" Obama...

During Bill Clinton's administration I often wrote about what I called "the professional wrestling tactics of American politics," in which sound bites were used to challenge opponents, often not on substance, but for the purpose of making the news. When Bill Clinton shut down the government because partisanship brought Washington to their knees, it was the culmination of these types of tactics. Name calling diluted our national conversation.

Hillary, stuck in the 90's, played the role of "Rowdy" Roddy Piper today.  "I'll see you in Ohio," just needed to be followed by Hulk Hogan's name.  She's still hung up on these political games that so many Americans are flocking to Obama in hopes of ending.

His response was cool, collected, honest and completely derailed her tantrum.  The big question is if or not anyone will cover it as much as her pro-wrestling cage rattling was.  

The media hasn't been quick to respond with all of the false statements HRC made about BHO in her mailings. They barely covered her "plagiarized" lines after her Xerox comment.  Most of America never saw Michelle Obama's explanation of her American pride comments. Still, Obama's picking up donors, Superdelegates and most importantly, votes. He's on his way to the title belt.

There's an energized electorate at work here, who seem to be researching their own opinions. Both for her and for him. They can't be convinced one way or the other.  --But the mainstream media still controls much of the conversation in this country. There are plenty of Americans who buy into sound bites. These pro-wrestling tactics could work for Hillary, as they did for many politicians 15 years ago, if the truth is not also covered in the media.

Tomorrow morning's "news" programs will  be interesting and somewhat important. I'll look forward to TPM's weekly wrapup video.  The debate next week could very well be full of sound bites like what HRC said today.

I think it's important for Obama to stay on message and not stoop to her style of candor. I don't see how she'll make up the delegate spread. Her tactics only stand to divide and weaken the party. Standing cool and calm to her can help build a wall against that. Be Presidential, Mr. Obama.  There's no need for a steel cage match, when you're so close to the championship belt.  She just wants to hit you with a chair to make it harder for you to move around the ring on your way to the main event.

Why isn't the media reporting that after claiming Obama plagiarized lines in a speech, Hillary used one of her husbands and then closed the night with one of John Edwards'?

And she calls Barack Obama a Xerox for using lines from his campaign co-chair? HYPOCRITE.

Let's be clear. Like what Josh posted on the front page, I don't think there's anything wrong with using the lines. I normally would be glad to hear any candidate, even HRC say these things. I just think she was wrong to try and manufacture an issue against her opponent.

I especially think it's wrong that CNN, MSNBC and hordes of other news outlets are broadcasting the Xerox zinger without the balance of bringing these points to light.

Clearly, for all their complaining about the media's treatment of HRC, Clinton's camp is the most favored in coverage. They quickly report any scandal on Obama or McCain, but have yet to this year do any Clinton scandals.

Sure, they covered the race baiting and I'm sure some Clinton fans can find some other minor things, but with the myriad of meaty Clinton scandals out there (earmarks to campaign contributors, how she was the only first lady to ever have criminal charges brought against her, various fundraising snafus, misrepresentation of her record) it'd be nice to see some fair and balanced dirt-digging.

This is not a blog, it is a link to this article:
http://www.northstarwriters.com/ss083.htm
which compares our current campaign season to the last season of the West Wing.  I thought some of you may find it interesting as well.

I just posted this in reply to someone else's blog, but decided it was long enough to be my own...
-------------
I've only come to be an Obama supporter recently, and will confess to be one of the dreaded "anyone but Clinton voters." BUT, I find it deeply refreshing, and did even before supporting him, that someone could rise to becoming a Presidential candidate the way Obama has.  

Don't get me wrong, he has an impressive record both in education, as a community organizer, a State legislator and freshman Senator, but he's not had to make the kind of political alignments most major players have to.  Sure, he's not squeaky clean, but for a politician, he is. Vetted? He's soaring through the Clinton attack machine. For the most part he's let her play the bad cop, and has continued talking about how we can all come together to fix the nation.

I truly believe that all of this is as much of an appeal to his supporters as the "pretty speeches" his opponents criticize him for. He exemplifies a true American success story, is not covered in the grease of the political machine, and is honest with us that it will take all of us to make real change and that the President doesn't legislate. This is why people barely getting by write him checks. 1,000,000 people aren't all sipping latte and cashing in their trust funds.  It's 1,000,000 people from many walks of life. It's 1,000,000 people hoping to invest in a better America.

This is why independents and Republicans are supporting "the most liberal Democrat."  This is why libertarians like me are supporting a moderate like him.  We want to work towards an American political system less cluttered with partisanship and corporate influence.

We want a leader who doesn't discount us, but includes us in the hard work, and believes that we too want the best for America. We want Barack Obama, who he is and what he represents, right now.  If he doesn't get the nomination, millions of us will always wonder what would have been possible. Right now, millions of us are ready to fight to make those possibilities tangible.  Discounting our hope doesn't dissuade anyone, it makes us more vigorous.

This isn't your typical apathetic American voting audience anymore. That's why HRC's rhetoric about substance, attacks on borrowed talking points, and lies about her own record aren't sticking. We've done our homework. THAT is why we're excited. The hope stems not from speeches, but for the possibility of cleaning up our government. There's a spirit of political renaissance.  I for one am excited by how excited the general electorate is, and am hopeful that yes, indeed, we can.

TPM offered up this story from the NY Times this weekend:

"NYT: Many New York City Precincts Initially Reported Zero Votes For Obama By Eric Kleefeld - February 16, 2008, 2:59PM

A new look at the election results from Super Tuesday could end up giving Barack Obama a few more delegates from New York — it turns out that hundreds of voting machines in New York City initially reported zero votes for him, the New York Times reports, but those numbers are now finally coming in through a formal review.

The executive director of the city's Board of Elections said that while such counting errors often happen as a result of human error, "they're not usually that big."

Indeed, even a Hillary-supporting state Assemblyman said that a margin of 118-0 in one precinct "has to be a mistake."

I haven't seen this story covered anywhere else.  Is anyone looking into how this could happen?  This should be a major news item.  Especially since it happened in Clinton's "home" State, where the Governor is an avid supporter.

As a NYer, I want answers.

I've had enough of the "Hillary Clinton's 35 years of experience" argument, claiming that she has foreign policy and other experience that Obama does not.  Hillary Clinton is my Senator. She's got a half term more experience than Barack Obama.  Sure, I'm bitter about jobs she promised Western New York State and never delivered on, (unless you count outsourcing to India from a Buffalo home base) but I honestly think that she's blowing this "experience" out of proportion.

As much as I'm not a fan of hers, I would never short Clinton on her accomplishments. She's a smart, motivated, accomplished woman.  --But I've had enough of her touting her experience. Again, she's my Senator, a one and a half term Senator. THAT is her experience.  --and personally I don't feel she's represented my portion of the State very well.

For her to say that she has all of this experience is as the nice janitor at my work place would call it: bull-hockey. Being married to someone with on-the-job experience doesn't give you the experience. If Laura Bush were running, I doubt Democrats would be praising HER experience.

By Hillary Clinton's definition, you gather experience from osmosis from other people's experience.  I'm happy to start using her definition.  I feel like I've many worthwhile experiences in my crazy life, but by Hillary's classifications, I can do anything. Apparently if you sleep with someone, you not only sleep with everyone that person has slept with, but you experience all of their experiences.

I invite you to reply with your own Hillary-esque experience by osmosis.  Here are some of mine.

Me, I've dated two cellists.  I must have written Handel's "Messiah."

I've dated a woman who worked on some pretty major Hollywood films. I'm an Oscar nominee.

I hooked up with a  college professor, I must have my PhD.

I've dated several single mothers, and am an expert in childhood development.

I've slept with adult entertainers. I must be eligible for an Adult Video News award.

I've done it on a boat, I'm the friggin' commander of the Navy.

I dated a Goth girl. I am a vampire.  I've dated a hippy chick. I was in the Grateful Dead.

I've dated several certifiably insane women, I'm an expert in mental health.

I've dated women on drugs. I wrote "Trainspotting."

I could go on and on. By these standards, I'm a Washington Lobbyist, related to a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a State Police officer, a Judge, an expert in climate change, finance and bats, and so very much more.

I had ice cream with Bill Clinton and Al Gore once.  Am I more qualified that Hillary Clinton to  be your next President? By Hillary's standards, I think many of us are just as "experienced."

The spin doctors are already trying to paint last night’s results into a myriad of custom masterpieces, but I wanted to churn something out myself about the results.

Personally, I wish the voter turn out was getting reported more. It was record breaking in most places, especially for a primary.

Since the delegate awards are proportional on the Democratic side, “winning” a state isn’t as important as the margin of the win. This too is going to be misleading to the average voter while watching the news.

On the Republican side, the big shock was how well Mike Huckabee did.  Clearly the Republican base is still disenfranchised from their nominees, and the religious vote in the South turned out to keep the Huckster alive.

As a disenfranchised Democrat, I’m quite excited about how things went for Obama.  He pulled more state “wins” than Clinton, but more importantly (as noted above) he split the delegates.  Including super-delegates who are already pledged to one candidate or another, Obama is only behind Clinton by 93. *That’s my count as of 9:30 am EST.  (New Mexico still hasn’t been decided either.)

I think that this is spectacular. Though I’m an Obama supporter, and was hoping for big things, I still expected to be a couple hundred delegates behind Clinton this morning.  I never expected him to pick up mostly white states like MN and UT.  I bought too much into the talking heads on TV telling me how much race is effecting this race.  –But if you look at the exit poll data, something I predicted just before MySpace pulled down my old blog page is ringing true.  Hillary’s base has become older and elderly women.  Sure, she pulled votes with the Hispanics and Asians which helped win CA, but clearly her momentum is in that high-voter-turnout demographic of older ladies.

I can’t discount race entirely. Hispanics and Asians helped Hillary.  Obama dominated the black vote.  –But he also won white males and women under 40.  This gives me great hope for the weeks ahead.

I never expected Super Tuesday to end this race.  I did expect Clinton to do a lot better.  I knew she’d win MA and NJ. Any spin to the contrary today is just that: spin.  She polled ahead by many points in both of those states, except for a couple of days ago.  With as flawed as polls have been this year, you have to look at the data from the last couple of months as a whole, and discern some averages. 

While I had hoped Obama would win CA, and that could be spun for him today as a big victory, I’m satisfied with the fact that he was a close second, not to mention that he won 40% of Clinton’s adopted home state of NY.  I’m proud to say that Obama won my voting district in Buffalo.  He didn’t win all of the city, but he won our section. I was also proud to see he did well in my former home of CO.

As I said, I expected Obama to be a couple of hundred delegates behind Clinton today, so I am both relieved and hopeful. Let’s not forget that at this time last year, everyone thought Hillary Clinton was inevitably the next President of the United States.  We Democrats in the Obama camp have launched a strong opposition to that. No matter how this thing is spun, they can’t belittle that.

The next round of primaries will be interesting to watch, to say the least. Spin will play a big part of this thing. Obama’s momentum can only be stopped if his supporters become apathetic. We have to prepared to stay enthusiastic and energized about this campaign into the August convention.  This race is going to force a brokered convention, which is exciting to me.  We actually have a chance for real change.

Like any political junkie in America, I’m exhausted today, but more than ever I believe that, yes, we can.