Rewind the tape.......back to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 when Barack Obama reminded Americans, that John Kerry believes that "in a dangerous world, war must be an option, but it should never be the first option."

"We have real enemies in the world," Obama said. "These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure."

So, let's get this straight once and for all....Barack Obama supported John Kerry in '04 in spite of Kerry's affirmative vote on the Iraq War resolution. But, now Obama claims that Hillary Clinton doesn't have the judgment to be president because of her vote on the same resolution. Isn't this a double-standard? How could Obama support Kerry's judgment then, but not Hillary's on the same issue?

I guess the answer is P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S....coupled with expediency.

Asher Steinberg

Obama won in the state of Washington 3 to 1 which does not allow cross over votes as well as Wyoming, Utah, and others.

-- chhabili

+++++++++++++

You are totally off base about Washington State. We had a caucus and a primary.

Our caucus was wide open -- no party affiliation needed to be declared. In fact, it was so loosey-goosey, that people could sign in with their preference and leave. Hell, they could have come back and written down their preference again! No voter identification was required (such as a voter's registration card).

Anecdotal, for certain, but I saw *known* staunch Bush-supporters caucusing for Obama -- I asked one neighbor why he was caucusing for Obama since I know he's not a Democrat, but a right-winger's right winger, and he said, "because I want to see him running against a POW." (grinning)

Our primary didn't count for allocating any delegates -- thanks to the imperious attitude of the state party. Our primary was a waste of time, money, and an insult to the democratric process.

So, chhabili....you are just flat-out wrong about Washington State.

I might raise your hackles but I think Geraldine Ferraro's comment was fairly accurate. If Obama was a white man or a white woman (or a Black woman), with his razor-thin experience, he wouldn't be where he is today. I truly think that is the reality -- and I would think it even if I supported him. His race has been a huge plus for him this campaign season.

It has nothing to do with being racist or playing the race card -- the reality is, Americans love drama, and Obama has provided the prose and the verse to involve emotions and conflicts. His campaign "drama" (and I'm not saying that to be negative) is designed to evoke the image of a theatrical performance, with all its situations and events intended to create intense conflict. Americans thrive on conflict.

Many Americans feel really good about themselves because they are proving they are "ready" for a black president -- they are "in on the act" of the drama, so to speak. If Obama was NOT black, but all other things were equal, he would NOT be where he is today. My guess is, if Obama the black man, had not been in the race, John Edwards or even Joe Biden would be slugging it out with Hillary and would have knocked her off by now.