I think that some really important issues that readers want more information about in this campaign are:

1. What about Clinton's mailer in New Hampshire characterizing Obama's stance on abortion as "less than" 100% protecting a woman's right to choose. What do you think about this mailer? She signed it so she must be standing behind these claims. Do you think Clinton's assertions hold water? This is a crucial issue for feminists--probably more so than the gender v. race wars that are fueling the tabloids.

2. What about Obama's "Not Present" votes in the Senate and in Illinois legislature? Clinton has alleged that these votes indicate a lack of commitment to his progressive values. I have read about these votes elsewhere, but I'm interested in your take. Can these not-present votes affect his standing with voters in the primaries and/or the general election? What do you think?

These are my two biggest questions right now, and I would be interested to hear what your take is.

Thank-you.

I am not a limosine liberal (I earn less than $25,000 per year working two jobs), I am not a lefty Clinton hater who is secretly in bed with the right wing conspiracy against them (I voted for Bill Clinton in two elections, including the first one where I ever voted for a president) and your comments are aimed at me.

Apparently I, as a slick Obama supporter, must be responsible for victimizing the Clintons and "spinning" Senator Clinton's remarks. This blame anybody but yourself for your problems is an unattractive feature of Mrs. Clinton that is coming out in this election.

As I understand it, Clinton has gained two pieces of traction on this issue. First, both she and Gloria Steinem introduced race into the picture...Obama has never played the "race" card, maybe to Clinton's irritation. Instead, Clinton makes strange remarks about MLK after Steinem's article in the New York Times positing that race and gender must be compared and contrasted before one can vote, and this is, whether we like it or not, a piece of traction amongst those in America who are afraid of having a black president. Clinton has brought up race, and so has Bill Clinton, repeatedly over the past week and I have not seen Obama raise the issue once. And the second piece of traction Clinton has gained from this interview is that it's not her fault, in fact it is the fault of campaigners for a black president. How dare "they" bring race into the picture, to try to--what? What is the benefit? Win the race in South Carolina? Smear the Clintons? Make MLK look like he deserves more credit than he does for civil rights?

I don't hate the Clintons but I am starting to hate the way they campaign. For those of you who support Mrs. Clinton's down-and-dirty campaigning ways, more power to you, but I refuse to take "credit" for the media spin that is happening right now as a result.

Perhaps if Clinton kept her campaign focused on issues rather than identity politics the candidate with the best qualifications, regardless of their race or their gender, could be elected into the highest office in the land. Does anyone else worry that her method of campaigning may only end up preventing a woman or a black man from being the choice of the nation, and I think for the issues alone, that would be a crying shame.

As they say in the Clinton camp; where's the beef.

1. Obama is not a full pro-choice voter:

As for his not presents votes, are you aware of this: that it was with the explicit consent of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html

He has a 100% approval rating with pro-life groups. Where did he get this if he was not explicitly pro-choice?

Check your facts before passing on smears that don't hold water. In the Illinois Senate, voting present is a way of protesting laws that are unconstitutionally written. There is an article about that here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

Name one situation where Obama's vote (or present and not voting) stance hurt a woman's right to choose. Where's the beef? These arguments are not based on facts, but rather on "scare" smears.

2. The "fact" that Obama is race-baiting you base on Senator Hillary Clinton saying that he race-baited? Where is her evidence?

If you repeat a lie enough times, it doesn't become by alchemy the truth (although Bush has tried it enough times to throw this assertion into doubt--for example many Americans still believe that saddam Hussein was behind 9-11) but is this really the way we're running campaigns still in 2008?

If you have a criticism of Obama that has facts behind it, by all means, bring it forward and I will consider it. Until then, attempt to smear the reputation of Obama is only making Clinton look worse and more desperate with each new false allegation.