when will people get it: first of all he played the "hope" card and the "change" card and for a lot of people in this world the possible "change" from a "white warmonger" to a "black and white" American who wants to stop a war - fight for the poor and tries to be constructive is so much more than they can hope for!

to aka - It's amusing that you're trying to cast people who have a different take on something as "Obama has still cooperated in the racial smearing of the Clintons".

The events in this campaign that are being currently discussed are hardly established and undisputed historical facts and are certainly open to more than one intepretation no matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.

to KStone - I hope you won't mind but I would like to take some of what you have said with just one point.

You said: It's amusing that you're trying to cast people who have a different take on something as "rewriting recent history". The events in this campaign that are being currently discussed are hardly established and undisputed historical

facts and are certainly open to more than one intepretation no matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.

But I used to work on a newspaper and God help us if we offended the readers with such bad advertising for a good politician like Hillary.

Having written what you wrote, which no doubt served your needs as a writer and which no doubt was probably cathartic, you cannot run away from it now. We may give you points for honestly discussing this, but your students won't. Over and over in the way your writing is conducted, I see a sort of

assault on the truth. You want to use the truth when it suits you your -- truth -- but without suffering the gross violation of interpretation. Excuse me! People, especially English teacher, just don't have that luxury. That is because "the truth" is not an endlessly malleable and useful tool for those who want to select their own truth!

let's just hope: If you see what you are writing you will know

what you are thinking!

of course I understand that dealing is worse than taking!

about last night - and afterwards - I didn't like the other Salonistas gloating. I only had the best intention to turn the volume DOWN - and if the subtext of your "dealing" with Obama was unintentional and you are just this feisty Texan, who happens to like Hillary - I'm with you all the way. My brain might prefer the "policy" of an Obama - but Hillary will always be in my heart - Damn!- If she only would have gotten rid of her cheating husband and hooked up with the notorious W.E.S!

do I believe in the existence of the biggest uncertainty epidemic the world has ever faced and it is spread by a virus(people)- who have to express their certainty in order to fight their uncertainty - And why - if all of this is equally uncertain does somebody write a book about the certainty epidemic??

for Obama will make a difference!

when will you people finally get it - the "resume" has already been discussed to death on this threads and you will "change" nothing anymore. You might have a much better chance to prep your candidate for her visit on the Daily Show. I fell in love with Hillary when she was there in 2003 - and still don't understand her "change" - You seem to have a lot of "inside"

information perhaps you can tell me the most important thing: What happened to that wonderful relaxed and witty woman from

2003 - was she abducted by aliens and is now an "plant" from planet Misisumandoptudor??

don't get mad at Obama if Bryan is behaving poorly - there are a lot of wonderful Obama supporters on this thread just read the letters of AJCalhoun!

In November of 2002 a friend I had for 24 years told me I was a traitor and threatened to never speak a word to me again because I was against the Irak war - In 2006 he called me and told me he was "a bloody idiot" and he send me Obamas speech from october of 2002. I put it over the desk in my office and each time somebody asks me why I'm for "Obama I just give him a copy:"I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United

States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of

undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda".

What an amzazing visionary!

I didn't realize you read the whole speech because you quoted just the least important part.

why did you just quote the most important part?