The question should not be whether Obama's camp was being nice. You don't hire a president to be nice.

The question is, were they right?

And yes, yes they were.

It was in bad taste, it was nasty, and it was absolutely correct.

The last bit is what matters.

To go on about whether it was a nice thing to say is basically stupid, shallow and cheap - and asking for more of the same when the next Democrat takes power.

Obama has up until this point played nice-as-pie, which hasn't impressed me because being president takes somewhat more then a wholesome smile and platitudes about "Lets all be friends."

The reaction from his camp on Bhutto's death shows that there is something more to him and his campaign than vanilla. It shows a strong point that he actually stood firm and he was right.

I have argued with you before.

The last proper IQ test I took gave me a score of 155.

Do I strike you as being a genius?

Nope.

That is because IQ tests are not an accurate measure of anything other than a person's ability to take a test.

IE: IQ tests aren't considered reliable by the scientists most familiar with them. They are sort of useful at times as a rule of thumb, but they aren't an absolutely accurate measure of someone's brains.

Don't just be offended because it is racist, it is rotten science too!

this constant refrain that Hillary is smart.

Lets be honest here, she thinks the Wii is training up a generation of killers and her Iran vote was a direct repeat of her Iraq mistake.

Plus what she really objected to in GTA San Andreas was that it contained some sex scenes that required downloading something to unlock. Remember, this is a game called Grand Theft Auto.

While the older middle class female might see her as an option the youth vote sees her as a laughing stock for several very good reasons.

The two real options to my mind are Obama and Edwards.

Money, race and sex are irrelevant. The question should be who can best run the country.

Obama and Edwards both offer America a path into the future.

Obama will give you unity and cost you the chance to hold America's current leadership accountable, and those rifts in America's political culture may narrow slightly, but they will still be there waiting to be exploited.

Edwards is not offering you a compromise he is offering you a firm position when the right has for the last twenty years been yanking the debate rightwards. Edwards will not heal America's rifts, but he will confront them and lead to more being done about them.

As you can probably tell, I lean towards Edwards, but Obama is an acceptable choice in this. Hillary, I just do not see what people see in her past her surname.

Give America a female who is at the very least not pro censorship, pro declaring Iran's lawfully constituted military a terrorist organisation, pro actually answering questions on her policy decisions with something other than a giggle - then you can talk about sexism.

Americans aren't voting for a statement about gender or racial equality, Americans are voting for a presidential candidate.

and who is pro actually answering questions on her policy decisions with something other than a giggle

In a situation where foreign policy is a serious problem she has: Voted to declare the legally constituted army of the world's second biggest oil supplier a terrorist organisation.

When Vladimir Putin wished America a merry Christmas, she declared that he didn't have a soul. Anyone for some freedom fries?

In a situation where civil rights are a major issue within America she supported two moves against freedom of speech - namely being in favour of censorship in gaming and making flag burning illegal.

Further, while she seems bright her main opposition to the violent game Manhunt 2, was that the Wii's controls could lead to kids becoming competent killers. IE: Seeming isn't the same as being bright.

Thus she has negatives amongst the youth vote (Which plays computer games) and the conservative vote (which will not vote for a Clinton.)

So you tell me, is it heart or head that leads people to opposing her?

Yes, lets look at the person underneath by all means.

Edwards has both Obama and Hillary on the issues. Obama has both Hillary and Edwards on the inspiration and Hillary?

She has supporters who seem to think that pulling the gender card is a substitute for actually presenting a real argument.

This is Hillary:

In a situation where foreign policy is a serious problem she has: Voted to declare the legally constituted army of the world's second biggest oil supplier a terrorist organisation.

When Vladimir Putin wished America a merry Christmas, she declared that he didn't have a soul. Anyone for some freedom fries?

In a situation where civil rights are a major issue within America she supported two moves against freedom of speech - namely being in favour of censorship in gaming and making flag burning illegal.

Further, while she seems bright her main opposition to the violent game Manhunt 2, was that the Wii's controls could lead to kids becoming competent killers. IE: Seeming isn't the same as being bright.

Thus she has negatives amongst the youth vote (Which plays computer games) and the conservative vote (which will not vote for a Clinton.)

So you tell me, is it heart or head that leads people to opposing her?

None of that has to do with her being female - nor even whether she is likeable.

Edwards on the other hand is far more liberal than she is, has been consistant in his anti-corporate lobbyist stance and has not accused a major world leader of lacking a soul.