the Republicans will not be as kind as Senator Clinton"

We've already got media saturation of choice Rev. Wright clips like G-D America, and the chickens comin' home to Roost.

My favorite (evil) talk-radio station is already saying that Rev Wright comes from the "Kill Whitey" wing of the militant black church. It sounds dated to me, but might resonate with voters over 55 who remember the sixties, of which there are many.

Obama has also shown that he is willing to mix it up and confront dubious claims, unlike Kerry. The media loves controversy and give him air time to make his case, if only to keep the blood (and dollars) flowing.

So what can they do? Can they still say Obama is a manchurian muslim and a 20 year follow of the Rev Wright? I'm sure they are working on it.

Fox-News's own Chris Matthews

The indefatigable Chris Matthews is on MSNBC, isn't he?

ljWalker, if you want to discuss this, why not just inline the quote and provide a link?

If I remember correctly, when asked by the reporter the first time, Hillary strongly denied Obama was a Muslim. He kept asking (why, me wonders?) and that's when her response contained at the end ", as far as I know". She might have thought the reporter was using the question to set her up. And I have noticed that her speech patterns often contain language like this. She's trained herself to leave a bolthole, a little wiggle room. She uses that ambiguity a little too often for my tastes. It's one of the reasons I distrust her policies.

Yeah, I was shredding through the catholic encyclopedia, didn't even know such a beastie was online. It was cool. I used similar search criteria as you suggested. Apparently Spartacus has made more inroads into Acadamia then I suspected. I found a lot of references to the eternal city (Rome) and external god, but no direct linkage. I probably didn't know the magic words to isolate the search correctly. A fool's errand, but one I was happy to undertake.

I sure someone here is erudite and learned enough to tie St. Augustine and a few thousand years of tradition (pagan, christian, etc) into our current times and the Obama speech. Me, I think I'm craving a donut.

I see that you are one of those well-tempered Hillary supporters that lj keeps telling me about. Like her, why don't you post the full text of her comment and we can discuss?

Like I said, she denied the comment that Obama was a Muslim. She did leave a little bolthole at the end in case she was mistaken or new facts are revealed. Focusing on that single phrase is a stupid as focusing on the "typical white person" phrase. Which is stupid. Deal with it. I am. I'm not basing my support of Hillary on that particular comment. I don't consider it racist, I don't think it was preplaned, I think it was reflexive cya. I'm supporting who ever gets the nomination.

And hey, what's wrong with sex with someone you enjoy?

I took soixante60's advice and I'm back. It was refreshing. Here's a little contrast to our speech and comment prasing, courtesy of manos:

http://digital.uwyo.edu/webarchive/scott/huac.html

Does this mean that my dog is exonerated?

There is still guilt by association.

So am I saying that if your evaluation of the "as far as I know" riff does not take this sentence into account constitutes dishonesty?

Absolutely. I prefer to respect the English language.

Oh, but I am taking that sentence into account. She doesn't believe the rumours, smears (etc) are true; as far as she knows. I don't believe the rumours or smears either; as far as I know. I'm content with her statement of belief. She's acknowledging that her belief is not absolute, it's not a fact, it's only as far as she knows. Subsequent facts could alter her belief. Where's the dishonesty in seeing the obvious?

If I bark like a dog, I know that I have barked like a dog. If I tell someone that I barked like a dog, but they didn't hear it, then they could say, Fester barked like a dog, as far as I know; subject to the videotapes.

You can respect the words, but I would also suggest fluency as well.

She can win with the popular vote, which is much more democratic, imo, than delegates (particulary in caucus "victories", which are notoriously undemocratic). If you look at the popular vote total thus far (minus caucus states), there are only about 200,000 votes separating them.

If the DNC counts the caucus votes, why are you subtracting them? That's not reality based.

After making a lot of noise about what's happened to FL & MI you want to dismiss votes in places like Iowa and Washington? You should know that the Hillary camp is not winning any friends in Caucus states by denigrating their process, especially Iowa, where they seem to love it. In fact that bad attitude looks like it cost Hillary delegates when the state conference came up a few weeks back in Iowa.

So Obama is anywhere to 710,000-821,000 votes ahead in the popular vote.