The great uniter went after Ferraro again for a comment she made 6 weeks ago to a minor newspaper.

First of all, I don't agree with your "went after" characterization, but are you kidding me? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If Ferraro had made just that one comment six weeks ago and apologized graciously (ala Samantha Power) and left it alone, THEN what you say would make sense. You forgot the whole last week of bellicosity, her appearances on nearly every talk show in existence, reframing her original "comment" in even more inappropriate terms and rebelliously challenging anyone to disagree, all the while collecting votes from soft racists under the watchful eye of Senator Clinton, who could have stopped her at any point.

sweet home alabama, what a moron.

One short paragraph in the speech spoke of Israel, and Obama spoke the truth that radical muslims do want the state of Israel to cease to exist. that's it.

no, that isn't it, did you even read the paragraph? Here is the relevant part:

a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

So you agree with this and honestly believe that poor old defenseless Israel has done nothing politically to bring about criticism and animosity? It isn't Israel's fault, its the fault of those radical Palestinians that need our boots on their throat in order to make sure they lead a good and moral life. Did OBL use the Israeli/Palesitnian conflict in his 9/11 justification because he is a subhuman animal that was just looking for an excuse?

He did not condone Israeli actions in their entirety.

He implied that Israeli actions in the region have done little to nothing to stir the hate in the region, it is all the crazy Arabs and their crazy religion.

He state they are an important ( I believe he said stalwart) and that is so.

Why? What is so important about Israel? Is it as important as Saudi Arabia? They are both in the middle east and surrounded by "bad guys". What about Dubai? Or Australia? Or China? Or Russia? Or Sweden? So are we going to fight their wars too? Why aren't they special enough for us to kill their enemies too?

Do you think he doesn't understand the Palestinian issue, the Gordian knot of our time, far better than McLame or Hillary?

none of them do. They don't even care enough to treat Muslims as humans, engage them, or determine their motives. They would rather portray them as subhuman, it's easier, you don't have to pay attention to their points, which can be dismissed outright on the basis of their inhumanity, and the propaganda is more potent when the target is perceived as subhuman and therefore incapable of governing itself or acting rationally.

The candidates are too busy buying into their own American self-love and "we're #1 because we are #1" mentality to face the reality of blowback generated by a CIA with a 50+ year dictator fetish. McCain couldn't even get it right when he bungled Shiites and Sunnis re: Iran.

You conflate him with LIeberman for that one sentence. Wrong.

How about conflating him with AIPAC? How about conflating the National Security of the US with the National Security of Israel? You know, the target of pander for that paragraph. One of his paranoid and bigoted advisers probably had him throw that in there, a little bone to any of the Zionists that are on the fence about Obama and Israel.

But I don't expect more than dehumanizing "Muslim Radicals want to destroy poor defenseless Democracy Spreading Israel that never did anything to harm anyone or deserve anything bad" propaganda. And don't expect anyone to point out the hypocrisy of "we need to unite and look past Divide and Conquer.... in order to 100% support Isreali War Crimes and its Divide and Conquer campaign against the Palestinians"

The people trying to make an issue of Obama's reference to his grandmother's words that made him "cringe" are insane. Period.

If you read Obama's entire speech, and you walked away from it thinking, "how could he be so mean to his grandma?" then you have a screw loose. Or maybe, just maybe, you don't have the simple grace to admit that it's a good speech that addresses important issues.

"You don't agree with me. You are insane. Or stupid."

If you don't remember, I mentioned I was fond of some portions. I just don't understand some of his supporters who get upset if I don't want to make out with the speech in its entirety.

Man, the sour grapes among the HRC supporters here are amazing.

Tell me, when will Hilary give as moving a speech about feminism as Obama gave about racism?

You see its easy to try and tear a man apart who took a chance and ADDRESSED the ISSUE, when your candidate fails time and again to address any real issue that she constantly complains about.

Lets just compare reactions by these two candidates, shall we?

HRC is and has been a victim of sexism- no doubt. So what has she done- cried, ranted, whined, and tried to use the divide between men and women in her favor by STOKING the fire. Thats all.

Obama took the issue by the horns, presnted and eloquent speech ADDRESSING the ISSUE- the most sensitive issue in America probably. In the process he called out both sides of the issue- blacks and whites and offered a new path forward, and a new perspective. In other words he took the chance of ADDRESSING YOU like an intelligent being.

So yeah, it must be sour grapes, why else would people be talking about a persons grandma- statements that were already public from his books- so she HAD to be aware.

I guess in the end he gave some people too much credit. Sadly, i thought the ones he was giving to much credit to were the Fox viewers. It seems he's giving too much credit to SOME- and a small amount i'm sure- of Hilary supporters.

He did what we always said we wanted- addresssed the issues with candor and intelligence- so he's BAD.

Hilary adresses the issue of feminism with sound bites, tirades and whining- but she's "good".

God Help Us.