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.