Gosh, but that phrase sounds familiar. Wasn't it said of some fellow on the GOP side not long ago?

I do not need to keep explaining to you what Colin Powell and the Bush administration did to get the War in Iraq approved.

Oh, I am so sorry for mentioning the name of Colin Powell.

Come on get over it. I will mention his name when it is fact that he was someone who I once respected, but once he used his power to sway people to think there were WMD's, I lost full repect.

KNOW YOUR FACTS AND STOP TRYING TO FORCE FEED US ON COLIN POWELL'S INNOCENCE.

You said:

>>Oh, and those of you talking about Obama's being against the war not counting because he wasn't in office yet:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech<<

Get this through your head. It's not that it "doesn't count" that Obama claims to have been against the war; it's that his voting record ever since he's been in a position to cast a vote for war funding is IDENTICAL TO HILLARY'S. He has voted to fund the war he's "against" every.single.time.he.has.had.the.chance.

Get it yet, genius?

That you echo the Republican noise machine doesn't bother you in the least?

And do you know what?

I want a president who can speak in full sentences, who can engage the electorate in a reasoned debate, who can actually take being criticised, and whose supporters don't go around whining about "haters."

I want a president who isn't afraid of the vast rightwing conspiracy. I want a president who will tear the rightwing conspiracy a new asshole (Though shit knows they have got enough of them over on that side of the aisle.)

I thought I had him in Edwards, but he ended up having to drop out due to a lack of coverage - so now I am stuck arguing for Obama, who is at least charasmatic enough to pull off being a centrist.

The race was really between Obama and Edwards for me, Hillary, I saw and still see as combining the worst elements of both.

that if Obama had been a Senator of NY (home of Ground Zero) in 2002, trying his damnest to please the entire state, that perhaps he too might have voted to invade Iraq a year after 9-11? He may have been against it from the beginning, but he was not placed in such a position. We will never know.

Yes, because leaving soldiers on the front lines without adequate being provided to pay for them having armour, healthcare and food would really be such a good alternative.

No, actually. Bringing them home would be so much better. And we sure do see how well all that Obama-supported funding has been apportioned, huh? Where some of us come from, that's called "throwing good money after bad". Nice try. See you in 8 years, if he has the backbone to stick around after losing.

He would probably have argued exactly the same way as he did. At the time Obama was taking a position which was unpopular across America, and could have cost him those elections.

Had he been in New York, it would have, and we would be arguing today about how Obama, this guy from New York who said the war was wrong in the atmosphere following 9/11, is running against two senators.

Isn't Hillary's worst problem the fact that Obama is receiving the black vote almost in its entireity?

I don't mean anything by this other than to point out the biggest change in the composition of her support from the beginning of her campaign to the present. When this whole thing started she was carrying a higher percentage of the black vote than Obama. After Iowa, and in the face of the commentariat writing her off (multiple times), her support became unmoored, and blacks went decisively for Obama, who was being pitched as the presumptive nominee. In essence, he became, what's usually called a "favorite son."

Whereas Obama is getting a percentage of almost all of Hillary's base, Hillary isn't really getting any of the black vote, and the black vote is substantial, much greater than the Latino vote is for Hillary outside of a few states. While a split black vote might go to several candidates, at least initially, with an all white roster of candidates, all of that goes out the window when there is a truly viable black candidate. So it only makes sense to switch and support Obama now. This could be Obama's time. Does that represent a rejection of the Clintons? If it does, why did 72-73% of voters in SC indicate in exit polls that they would support Hillary in a general election if she beat Obama? If black voters are as outraged at the Clintons as has been reported because of their "racism," why do we see this kind of support? Who actually is peddling this line that Bill and Hillary are the enemies of African Americans and racists to boot, tired and unelectable, disliked by the people?

My perception is that the most scurrilous attacks on Clinton are carried out by the sons and daughters of the affluent (daddy is probably a Republican, Mommy votes Democratic most years) probably in college, or just out of college, white, highly schooled, not that well read. Not that familiar with recent political history, but deadly serious in their commitment to the "perfect" candidate, these correspondents say things on line that I seriously doubt they would ever say in person. Despite the ferocity of their attacks on Clinton, I get the feeling that their attraction to Obama is based more on pheremones than policy. They support Obama because of the aesthetic of his candidacy, its transformative signature, its suggestion that everything that's wrong in this country can be solved by an election. Policy statements are so passe, so boring, nobody's interested in them. Obama is of the essence of "cool." Hillary is its anthithesis. She is so very "un-cool."

I strongly suggest that they consider the the example of a man they often liken Obama to, John F. Kennedy, our own Arthur in Camelot, the man who would dispense justice and mercy from the Round Table. We don't really know what would have happened had he lived, but if you take a look at everything that happened after his death, it might just give you pause as you contemplate what you see as a new Age of Aquarius. Vietnam tore the country apart, as did race riots, student protests, the silent majority in hard hats beating up demonstrators, Kent State, Attica, well, you can look it up. It wasn't pretty. I'd also point out that Camelot is a rather wistful paradigm for a presidential administration. After all, Arthur's Round Table was destroyed, as was Camelot, and as were the dreams of Arthur and his Knights.