By that logic, he should have. Maybe voters are more susceptible to gender bias than we like to think. Don't pick on a woman, because that would be unfair!

So, you know, think about the reason why a person like Obama (who clearly values multiculturalism) would be putting out stuff like this. It's specifically meant to counter false allegations that he is a radical Muslim / sleeper agent who is going to blow up the nation the day he takes office.

Please.

I don't see any great difference between him and anyone else on television. Nor do I see anything fundamentally untruthful in what Matthews was saying, unless we're deciding to parse words and not meaning. It's true that Giuliani is banking on Florida as his first big win -- that's no secret. So why the hate? It's petty and unbecoming, not to mention pointless.

Frustration is a normal human emotion (at least Obama has them, right?). Though I think in this case the more appropriate descriptor would be "annoyed with inane-question-asking reporter douchebag".

Speaking as an evangelical Christian myself, all I can say is "wow" to some of the ignorant things that have been posted here. I'd say more, but I have to get back to my snake-handling. I'm not even supposed to be here anyway -- I only logged on to check out www.nakedhotslutz4hypocriticalchristianz.com.

(P.S. for those interested, I am a supporter of Barack Obama, I am pro-choice, I am anti-death penalty, I am pro-gun control, and I don't think the answer to poverty is for people to "get a job".)

I know that (much to my frustration) there are a lot of yahoos out there claiming to represent Jesus and his teachings. I'm not claiming that these people, and the people who follow them, don't in fact deserve honest criticism. They do. I would just hope that we could be mature enough to move beyond stereotyping and name-calling when it comes to the larger (evangelical) Christian population. It's a bit Limbaugh-esque in my opinion.

To explain where I'm coming from a little: Jesus of Nazareth called for the separation of church and state 2000 years ago. He reached out to the poor, the outcast, those deemed morally inferior by the religious establishment of his day. He discarded religious laws for the sake of people, and spoke often about the dangers of dogmatism, false religiosity and materialism. And he said that the most important thing we could do is to love. And, you know, I happen to think that those are some good things. The fact that some people have turned this message of hope into ...well, another religion, is a terrible irony, but to me it does not negate the things that Jesus stood for, things which I believe are just as relevant and needed now as they were in his time.

Now I'm not saying that you need Jesus in order to believe in these things. (I don't believe that morality requires religion; it simply requires empathy.) I just think that Jesus' message is a good message (which is where we get the word from which "evangelical" is derived). Other people have good messages too. So there you go: you just read the extent of my "evangelism." I have no intention of shoving my point of view down anyone's throat. That's not the point, as far as I'm concerned. I value a pluralistic society. (How else are we going to erase prejudice and stereotypes?)

Can somebody tell me what John Edwards is still doing in this race (besides keeping HRC in first place)?

No doubt.

Having a vehement dislike for Hillary Clinton and being a misogynist are not the same thing.

Trust me. :-)

Obama said it -- this is a decision between the past and the future. I choose the future. And sooner rather than later, please.

Obama = the 21st century's JFK

The Clintons had their time. Thanks for the 90's (except for that bit at the end) but I'd like to move on now.

or else she's gonna look like a complete idiot...

Her insincerity even comes through on the written page.

Go Obama!

Interesting that you're 44 years old. There does indeed seem to be a generational split with Clinton and Obama supporters. In my experience talking with people about the Democratic race, it seems that if you're over 40, you support Clinton, and if you're under 40, you support Obama. It's an unscientific study, to be sure, but I do think this election really is a choice between the past and the future.

Neither (Hillary) Clinton nor Obama played the "race card". It was Black voters and Bill Clinton who did that. Anyway, Bill (not Hillary) is the one catching all the heat for it, and he's not on the ticket, as we are often reminded. So what's the big deal?

Clarification: by Black voters, I meant those who publicly interpreted (Bill) Clinton's comments about Obama as having racial overtones... and then of course (Bill, again) Clinton actually making racially-charged comments after Hillary lost the SC primary, trying to paint Obama as the "black" candidate.

"Senator Obama: if elected, when will you start your secret jihad against the United States?"

"Senator Clinton: whom do you admire more, Karl Marx or Mao Zedong?"

Although the best question would be:

"Would you mind pretending that we matter?"

That's what all of this is. Pure desperation.

There are no flattering pictures of Hillary Clinton.

At least "Obama Girl" was supposed to be funny.

....I think

Unless we are suggesting that people who work in Silicon Valley are the only ones who know how to use the interwebs...

Not only do I agree with you 100%, I also live in Texas... can't wait until March 4th! Go Obama!

geez, like anyone cares.

Yeah, let's return to the 90's... I can hardly wait.