Arandi wrote: "...Rev. Wright now Rev. Wrong not from my vantage point...The bulk of Rev. Wright's rants were right on the $$$.. Of course Obama should not be attacked in the guilt by assoc net but America is a fadish place where group think is the norm. Again what did the good Rev state that was inaccurate??? -- arandi..."

First, the Rev. Wright's tirade was racist. You may spin that any way you wish, but, I'm tired of hearing that kind of garbage from black leaders and having people apologize for them. Racism is racism regardless of the origin of those comments or to whom the epithets are directed.

Second, Obama only dismissed the comments AFTER they were prominently played on YouTube, et al. If they hadn't been so widely portrayed, he would have remained silent. Lovely.

Third, "what did the good Rev state that was inaccurate"? Congrats! You're right on up there with your hypocrisy. If a white Rev had made the same or similar remarks, the outrage would be deafening and the indignation overwhelming.

I would prefer the campaign rhetoric be concerning ideas, plans and dreams; it seems that the Obama supporters think that whatever THEY say is good and whatever Clinton supporters say is bad, racist, demeaning and hurtful. That, sir or madam, is hypocritical. I simply called attention to that hypocrisy. Sorry if you don't like the truth, but, there it is.

Bottom line: The racial makeup of the United States is (approximately) 76% caucasian, 11% latino, 10% black and 3% "other". If you think that by playing the "blacks-are-always-victims-and-whites-are-always-the-devil" race card you're going to win over a majority of caucasians ( or, latinos ), your math skills are as suspect as your political acumen.

Raise the level of political discourse to respectful disagreement; I think you'll find that it will be returned to you at that same level.

"A person's a person no matter how small", huh? How apropos; many of those nutball right-to-lifers are some of the smallest people I've ever seen...especially their minds.

So...how should we judge Barack Obama after his close financial ties with Mr. Rezko are exposed with its sweetheart dealings? What should we think when his spiritual advisor and pastor spouts anti-American and anti-white garbage? How should we assess him when he complains about having the so-called race-card played against him while he simultaneously plays one himself? The answer is that we tend to judge people by the company they keep and by the kinds of people with which they surround themselves. Br'er Rabbit must be his political advisor.

Obama, by his relationships with Rezko, the Rev Wright, et al, is either hopelessly naive or is a world-class liar. In either event, I have serious doubts about Obama as a candidate, as a person and as a symbol of so-called "change".

In the vernacular, Obama looks more and more like the "same old same old." Pah!

One question: if your candidate is so damned strong, why the great hue and cry for Hillary to drop out before the nomination has been decided? Whats the rush?

Doing the math, it is apparent that neither candidate will have the nomination decided by convention time. This will have to be decided AT the convention.

You may all be naifs at this, but, try to understand the concept; in the words of the legendary Yogi Berra...it ain't over till its over.

And, it certainly ain't over!

Wishing that the Rev Wright didn't engage in any anti-White and anti-Hillary diatribe or commentary doesn't make it so. I have the DVD of ALL his remarks...watching it start to finish several times...and find his remarks to be egregious, patronizing, racist and divisive. You, finding those remarks to be "okey dokie", are part and parcel of the same hypocritical bullshit-chorus that is the Obama crowd in general.

You can keep on doin' that "Obama-is-good-and-Hillary-is-evil" tapdance till the election; it won't change the hypocritical bullshit that spews from the Obamatons ad infinitum. The truth is that your candidate isn't perfect, has associates/friends who are con-men, rabble-rousers and flim-flammers, talks a good game but is short on specifics and has a plethora of supporters who seem blind to his faults and short-comings.

Obama plays it both ways: too good to get down and dirty with divisive actions/commentary AND getting down and dirty with divisive actions/commentary. What YOU are so angry about is that I, and others, are not drinking the Obama Kool-Aid and buying into the hype as we expose the bifurcative bullshit of the Obamatons.

I'm a Progressive. I've been a Democrat for twenty-five years since college. I am not, however, a sycophant; I vote the person, regardless of party affiliation. In this instance, I will NOT be voting for Obama...whether is the presidential candidate of the Democratic party or emcee of amateur night at The Apollo in Harlem.

"Amateur Night At The Apollo Theatre In Harlem" is neither a subtle racist dig nor a pejorative; it is simply a humorous descriptor meaning "lacking in professional ability". To me, Barack Obama has handled several campaign crises ineptly, i.e., with a "lack of professional ability". (Would you have preferred that I say "amateur night at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood"?)

Ascribing prejudicial motive or meaning to me about that phrase says more about how you view Harlem than do I; as a resident of New York City, I regularly attend amateur nights at The Apollo and enjoy them thoroughly. Peripherally, I'm white.

Deal with it.