Obviously, the implication of this ad is that Barack Obama is nothing more than a great orator with no substance and that he won't debate because he can't - he has no positions on issues, doesn't know the issues, has no practical policies, blah, blah, blah. This is simply untrue. Go to his website - thoroughly read and analyze his positions for yourself - you may not agree with them but they're there.

Last Friday I heard Samantha Power (a foreign policy advisor to Obama) speak in Virginia (BTW, way to go VA, DC & MD - the HAT TRICK!!). This woman is brilliant - she won the Pulitzer Prize for her book: "A Problem from Hell, America and the Age of Genocide." (She also just published a book "Chasing the Flame" about U.N. diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello who was assassinated in Baghdad.) She told the story that she met Senator Obama after he read her book on genocide and wanted to speak with her about the issue - apparently they talked for hours and she reported that he really got the issues, knew the issues. After this, she quit her job to intern in his senatorial office.

In her speech on Friday she made it very clear that Senator Obama really knows his stuff, has substantive policy positions, has the ability to implement same and is now - and will continue to be when he is President - surrounded by some very experienced and advisors on all the issues.

One problem with this whole question of "issues," "policies," "substance," etc is that journalists, for the most part, know nothing about issues and so they only cover the process. And they cover it as if they are all sports writers covering the World Series, the "Road to the Final Four" or the Super Bowl!! That is, the coverage in the media is extremely superficial and no wonder Hillary's people think that ads like the Wisconsin one will work.

By the way, as an aside with respect to Hillary's recent shake-up of her campaign staff and money troubles. What's the deal with that?! The woman can't even hire people who can competently manage her campaign and her campaign finances. And her supporters think she can run the country?!!! Scary.

You write: "now we are asked to believe Samantha Power, whoever she is..." On the internet there are these wonderful tools called search engines, the one I use frequently is called "google." And what I do when I want to find out about someone or something is go to the search engine and type in, oh, say, "Samantha Power." ezhik2 you should try it some time it is really fun!!

Okay, I am trying to get what exactly is the problem with Trinity United Church of Christ's 10-point vision in and of itself. (I know there are issues w/the pastor but that is another discussion.)

Many of these ten-points could apply to any (liberal) Christian congregation: adoration, salvation, reconciliation, biblical education, cultural education, liberation, restoration, and economic parity. Indeed, I belong to a Reform Jewish congregation and, with the exception perhaps of the first 2 (since those are Christian concepts, not so much Jewish or at least not in the same way) these could easily be part of our vision statement. With respect to non-negotiable commitment to Africa and historical education of African people in [the] Diaspora - why is this a bad thing? Shouldn't we all have a non-negotiable commitment to Africa and indeed all continents and the people who live there? And there is something wrong with teaching the history of African-Americans who were stolen from Africa to be slaves in America? Further, in my congregation we have a non-negotiable commitment to Israel (but that does not necessarily mean an inflexible "Israel right or wrong" stance)and we do seek to provide our members and their children an understanding of the history of the Jewish people in the Diaspora.

Although this church states that it is "unashamedly" black - does it exclude non-blacks? Is that information on their website? It would be helpful to know all the details so one can make a judgment. My congregation is "unashamedly" Jewish but we do not exclude non-Jews.

FINALLY, although I feel compelled to respond to some of these posts - what ON EARTH do they have do with Hillary's campaign ad????!!!??? Is there a reason people can't stay on topic and not go off on tangents about Obama's church, his statement about the Afghan/Pakistan border, some creepy Gein person, a slimy slumlord, and all of the other wingnut posts.

Alex Koppelman's article was about a Clinton ad and gave us an opportunity to view the ad. The posts should have to do with analyzing the ad itself and not going off in irrelevant, unrelated and downright bizarre directions. Can't folks find another place to post these off topic letters??