If Mark Brown has evidence that Obama was knowingly involved in something illegal or even untoward then he should spit it out. If not then STFU.

This "leaves me wondering if there's more here than meets the eye instead of less" crap is smear-boating at it's quintessential best.

It is not incumbent on Obama to defend himself from nonexistent accusations. Grow up Brown.

This is a lame attempt by the Clintons to yet again attack Obama for a non-issue. When are you going to start attacking McCain Hillary?

The "two versions" are entirely consistent. Can we drop this and move on to something substantive now please?

This is Rovian attack politics 101

1. Identify the opposition candidate's greatest strength

-Kerry's war record

-Obama's oratorial skill

2. Turn that strength into a weakness by

a. pretending that the candidate is touting it him or herself as a strength.

-e.g. "Kerry isn't really the war hero he says he is" (never mind that he never said it himself)

-Obama is "running on his oratorial skills" (Oh, really?)

b. then undermining the basis for the strength

-Kerry "lied about his war record"

-Obama's "speeches are not his own"

c. associating that strength with some negative idea and repeating it ad-nauseum in association with the candidate's name.

-Kerry "Lies"

-Obama "plagiarism"

This whole story has been concocted to connect Obama's name with the word "plagiarism". It's Obama's swiftboating. Hillary should be ashamed of herself for taking part in it. This is not what our party represents.

That's patently offensive. You obviously either don't understand the significance of the term or you're really bagging on Obama supporters. This is the same term used to describe the wingnuts who want to say both that FDR compromised with the USSR in Yalta and that the US could have won Vietnam if it weren't for those meddling war protesters.

It's a waaay too loaded term to toss around so lightly.

The bulk of the clips in the video you post are from those from the left and right (mostly the right) commenting on Hillary's crying at the campaign stop in NH.

How is commenting on that sexist? Do you honestly think that if a male candidate cried in a public forum they'd not be attacked about it? Do you forget Ed Muskie's tears? I'd submit that if a man cried his campaign would be over on the spot. How's that for sexism?

Has Hillary been subject to sexism? Certainly, and of course it's wrong. I just don't think it's had any effect whatsoever on her chances at the nomination. She has only herself to congratulate or blame for that.

Why is it that this association is a "problem" for Barack Obama but there is nary a peep about McCain's actively seeking the endorsement of Catholic-hating John Hagee and calling gay-bashing anti-muslim bigot Rod Parsely his "spiritual guide"?

For that matter where is the scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's belonging to the same "prayer group" (the "Fellowship") as evolution denying Sam Brownback and a whole list of wingnut fundies?

I guess I stand corrected, it's not IOKYAR (It's Ok If You're A Republican) after all -just simple racism. I mean what other common denominator is there among the candidates whose outrageous religious affiliations are ignored? Skin color. That's all.