This is another sad day for the eroding ethics in journalism. It seems that the Times has lowered the decency bar yet again-- like some corrupt Roman emperor they won't yield to the greater good. Defiantly they wield their power unabashed and shamelessly attempt to thwart Democracy...

Naw, just kidding their just liberal pigs out to get Obama in office. Now if you really want scintillating dirt on a candidate why not check out Obama and Larry Sinclair, or Obama and Tony Rezko? I don't see the times running unsubstantiated front-page stories about their boy wonder. It'll all come out soon enough and then ya'll be stuck with a crack smokin' bisexual for Prez. Now that's REAL change!

The Hillster has fat ankles. There, I said it.

As a result: 1) she wears ugly pant suits 2) her husband cheats on her 2)men hate her 3) women fear they'll become her All in all, ankle edema prohibits her from crossing the finish line to the presidency. Bad ankles trump gender every time...

MODO knows more than u think. She's nailed it.

Excuse me, I do feel like I'm eavesdropping on a family fight. You Dems really should get a hold of what you're saying. Susan Z says, "Hillary's repellent campaign tactics have me question whether her stands on the issues mean anything." And for this she gets a gold star? I've got news for you, half of America has been onto Hill's diabolical political ambition for years. Scorched Earth doesn't begin to describe what she's about to do to Obama. She'll burn the universe in order to make it to the presidential seat her husband defecated upon. You're just now noticing this character flaw? Impatient writes about Hillary being a "corporate shill"? C'mon you've got to be sharper than this--the well being of our country is at risk. Hillary is, was and has been a shill, Obama is too, ya'll just don't know to what extent yet--take off the rose colored glasses. If it's the year of the Dem President, as historically the Farmer's Almanac says it should be,then you better all hope that your two candidates don't exfoliate each other to the point that they're no longer attractive to anyone.

In some ways today's speech didn't change things for me--I was never going to vote for Barack. Frankly because his ideas on addressing some of our nation's perennial problems like health care, lagging education, illegal immigration to name a few simply won't be solved by his ultra-liberal, bigger government solutions. That said, In some ways I was more disappointed by his speech than many of you Libs will ever really understand. Throughout this marvelous, mischievous pre-election year I've taken pride in the idea that our country was finally leaving old racist ways behind. (Despite the fact that in recent years the Right went uncredited for elevating the likes of Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and others to not just token positions of power ala Bill Clinton's appointments, but breakthrough, race-busting perches in our highest national offices.) Throughout Obama's candidacy, I publicly pouted about his pathetic same-old policy solutions wrapped up in pretty prose. Privately, I thought it was pretty cool that color wasn't an issue.

His speech has doused that idealistic optimism I felt about him, an attractive, young black man as a transcender of race. He isn't. Nor was he ever. The ideas that his pastor Mr. Wright espouses are every bit Obama's despite how much he wants to explain it away. He may not shout it in shrill, caustic rhetoric now, but it's there. His wife Michelle has given us glimpses of it and if he should be elected, in my mind, there is no question that the teachings of Wright will sooner or later be heard from the now guarded lips of Obama. I'm really sorry for this. I'm gravely disappointed today--much like the long-ago loss of Easter bunnies and Santa. And did anybody notice one other thing? Today, Barack Obama didn't deliver his speech in that black preacher voice he has for certain other occasions. No,today he sounded like he was addressing The Harvard Club. What a ploy. What a disappointment to us all--both Left and Right.

Why did you respond to my letter by discussing degrees of liberalism between Obama and Clinton--both are too liberal for me and this country. We simply can't afford their solutions. Moreover, I believe America will reject them in November.. The pointI'm making is greater than policy. We worry about Islamic extremism being taught to youngsters in Masques around the world and within our own borders and here we find our own presidential candidate is listening to the same type of anti-American hate rhetoric for 20 years!! Doesn't that bother you? He admits he's a product of this type of thinking--that the US is responsible for 911, purposeful HIV infestation of the Black community etc. WE have checks and balances in place for a president who goes too right or too Left. What check do we have for a president who secretly loathes the country he leads?

Not good enough. Sorry, but I'm not a friend who can be dismissed for drinking too much. Shame on you. You now have absolutely refused to address the legitimate points I've posted on this issue and gotten gold stars to boot--might it be that you're Salon?? I'm not expecting you to agree with me on policy--you're obviously not equipped to handle that. But to remain mum on Obama's recent outing as a radical hate-America candidate?--a commentary on your political blind spot when it comes to right and wrong.