Good, that's one thing we agree on...You're Wrong!!!!!!! Now please explain why Obama is spreading lies about Hilary...Please also explain how Obama quotes Newsweek but They (Newsweek) even say that the quotes were not from Her...Obama's mouth pieces won't let a little thing like the truth stand in the way though...Hilary should just say she was "Misunderstood"...That seems to work...

"The Times" (london) is a quality newspaper and this week concern was expressed about Senator Obama's lack of foreign policy experience (29th February 2008), calling attention to the fact that, apart form a brief trip to London, this Presidential candidate did not visit any other place in Europe. According to "The Times", neither has Obama been to South America. This sounds very similar to George W. Bush's attitude to the outside world before being elected President of the United States (twice). Nobody has to tell you that the war in Iraq has cost you dearly and now, with anti-American feeling running high in Serbia and Russia, because of what is perceived by them as American meddling in Eastern Europe, fine speeches seem more important than calm, informed leadership. Good night.

outside the United States.

Question for you. After Hillary concedes on May 5th, will you continue to strike the alarm bells in your native land to 'ware the Manchurian Caligula, Barack O'Bama? Maybe you can become the Irish Paul Revere, roaming the countryside warning everyone not to be seduced by this horrible man-demon.

Or, will you realize that you've been spun by Republican trolls for the past few months, and join with us in the hope of a new and better day in America and the world?

..must be pimpin' out some pretty pathetic people to make some of these posts.

And shame on all of Obama's followers who continue to discredit/dismiss/deny/distort/downplay Sen. Clinton's long and distinguished public service record.

And, to all of you who continue to insist that she is not a feminist because she is running on her husband's record, that is first and foremost, ridiculous, and second, it is sexist and debasing to her and to feminism.

I have said this before and I will say it again: women face double standards and a much higher bar than men in nearly every occupation and at every level.

Sen. Clinton has been on the public stage twice as long as Sen. Obama: she has been a U.S. Senator for six years; served as First Lady for eight years; served as a member of President Carter's Legal Aid Corporation for three years; served on the Committee to Impeach Richard Nixon; and served as a delegate to the International Women's Year Commission during the 1990s. She also has national experience as a legal advocate for children through the Children's Defense Fund, started Arkansas's agency for abused and neglected children and started their statewide children's insurance program.

Her Senate record includes consistent support for women, children, the elderly, the poor, veterans, and on health and safety issues, education issues, and energy issues, among others.

The notion that Sen. Obama has the experience to be elected POTUS is really without merit. Were he a woman running on the same record his candidacy would not have made it to Iowa!

Has Sen. Obama accomplished some good things? Absolutely! And I give him credit for those accomplishments. However, to debase/deny/dismiss/discredit/downplay Sen. Clinton's accomplishments as "her husband's", and to completely deny her long record of accomplishments is absolutely debasing and completely without merit.

Finally, what might be really worth considering is how freely and easily Obama's followers use right-wing Republican tactics and talking points to smear and discredit Sen. Clinton. I call that mindless and dangerous parroting!

Double standards. I agree with an earlier poster who said that the hatred and vilification of Hillary Clinton is something that deserves a few hours or more on a couch!

Obama has to run as not being too black or too white. Just this morning he is being criticized because he did not attend the Black State of the Union but is campaigning in Texas instead. Hillary is actually at the Black State of the Union.

On the other hand, Hillary has to campaign as not being too masculine (or she is cold, calculating, dyke-ish, harsh) or too feminine (or she is shrill, weepy, bitchy). Both of them have a tightrope to walk.

The American pulic is rather like Goldilocks in the house of the three bears. They demand perfection, forgetting that being a successful politician means making compomises in order to even gain and remain in office. We always search for the anti-poltician. We will find one too cold and another too hot, one to soft and another too hard, looking for just right. This is a rather broken way to search for the right president.

Thus, we have these strange ironies. Mr. McCain, the ultimate insider, positions himself as the ultimate outsider, carefully grooming his dubious self into an ethical image. Obama, who is a capable and substantive person, avoids being too substantive, the better not to get pinned down in boring specifics and relying on oratory to carry the day for him. Clinton relies too much on the political gurus of the past to fight the campaign of the present and, due to sexism, is buffeted by every wind. She keeps trying to find what genuine is in a world that sees her as an aberration. Obama is simply a better actor who bridges better the conflicting parts of himself.

Journalism has always been old boy. Back in the 60s and 70s it was difficult for women to even get jobs in the field reporting on anything but society/women's page stuff. Male journalists lately have reverted to type. Chris Matthews is nothing new. Rather he is the sexism of old that has persisted because men to not want women in their club house.

If Obama wins, (I don't think he will.) then we can say that much of the entrenched racism of the last century has died. It would be wonderful to be able to say that -- but he is not really running as an activist for black people. He dare not. Should Clinton win, (I think she is barely capable of winning the general election against a politically crippled McCain.) then we can say that much of the entrenched sexism of the last century as died as well. However, Clinton dare not run on identity politics and the media has still tried to constantly make it look as if she is. She is doomed if she mentions feminism.

I think we can see how this is going. For Democrats -- for male Democrats we can conclude -- sexism remains alive and well. The progressive male is often no different from his Repulican counterpart in this way. These guys may not tune into Rush Limbaugh, but they have absorbed his message about those dangerous feminazis. Men seem to have a great fear of women in power. Some women do to. Maybe this is because the first woman in their lives was so life-and-death powerful. Withholding food or love could have sank their very chances for survival.

We hate what we fear.

Racism and sexism aside, I think we usually vote for the better actor. Television is a merciless medium. It rewards two things, those who are really genuine, Cronkite, Cher (forget the plastic surgeries), Ophrah and those who do a great job of faking it Reagan, Bush, George Clooney.

(I think movies can reward mystery but that is another medium.)

George Bush did a great job of faking who he was. He wasn't going to engage in nation building and he would bring us compassionate conservatism. I believe the most genuine moment of his political life was that black tie moment in Michael Moore's movie when he said his base was "the haves and the have mores."

So now we will see: Which phony will we elect this year? It is really a choice among phonies. Nothing in our system allows candidates to be real.