The strategy is to paint Obama as inexperienced. By highlighting her time in a war zone, she can claim experience that Obama lacks.

By carefully twisting her own words, she can tell a white lie. She can exaggerate some details to make a better story, but those exaggerations aren't technically lies, even though they're designed so that most people who don't know the history behind the event have something in mind that isn't quite really what happened.

Can't you see how ridiculous you're being?

It was all written accurately in her book for all to read.

She was not trying to argue she was more qualified by degrees of how close she was to sniper fire.

I'm sure she knows Obama may have been near some gun fire in Chicago or D.C.

I know people - plenty of people who have mis-remembered something and retold it that same way. Because the re-telling becomes the most recent memory of it.

She has had/does have much more experience than Obama for this position to be President of the United States at this time. To get him in there - is a rush-job. He could be a lot more qualified than he is. Plus, I truly don't think he would be able to win a majority of Americans at this point.

What a long strange trail it's been...

*I have to go*

*Take Care* -

Can't you see how ridiculous you're being?

It was all written accurately in her book for all to read.

She was not trying to argue she was more qualified by degrees of how close she was to sniper fire.

I'm sure she knows Obama may have been near some gun fire in Chicago or D.C.

You missed my point entirely. Even though it is all laid out in her book for all to read, I doubt everyone is going to read it. Instead, most people are going to rely on her representation that is retold by the media. If she tells the story so that everyone thinks that she was under active sniper fire, and she knows that is how they will interpret it even though what she says looks true in light of her book, then she is actively embracing the misinterpretation of her statement.

You also misrepresent my statement about sniper fire. I meant, specifically, that she had spent more time in "war zones" as a US official. Comparing it to some gun fire going off in Chicago or DC is irrelevant to her demonstration of experience.

Finally, if you think Obama is inexperienced, I wish to point out that Obama has spent almost 8 years in the Illinois Senate, and over 3 years in the US Senate. Generally, when you're involved with something for over 11 years of your adult life, you tend to have significant experience. If you think he's unknown, then you haven't looked very hard...plenty of sources list a great deal of legislation that Obama has sponsored, how he votes on various issues, and several committees on which he has served.

For comparison, Clinton has spent 7 years as a US Senator.

...didn't realise that this article was tongue-in-cheek! Glenn, please, enlighten her, and stop the madness!

So tongue in cheek! I needed a laugh. Thanks Glenn.

Now we will never know if McCain would have gotten 400 plus electoral votes even if the good Reverent Wright had been sent to his deserved reward last week through the tender mercies of a Mac truck grill.

Please assign somebody a very factual Hagee article, pronto. Be sure it's bedazzlingly well researched and written, so it'll be picked up widely.

Okay?

Thanks very much.

Glenn's correct. There's precious little to discuss about the good Reverend. The majority of what he says is true.......counter sanctioned narrative......true none the less.

What is worth discussing is Obama's sellout of that truth. The question mark of Barack Obama is becoming an exclamation point. Pandering to Israel and denouncing Islam in his "race" speech in Philly and now abandoning his pastor and his heritage and missing the opportunity to actually be "mr change is coming" as opposed to "more of the same" by embracing fully the pastor's message. Instead he's toadied up to his paymasters and vilified Wright for addressing publicly some of the US' most sacrosanct forbidden subjects; US state terrorism, imperialism, racism, classism to name a few.

The stampede for Obama, hopefully, will now come to an end. Whereas we know the shrew for what she is, Obama has fooled many. Good for the nation that he exposes himself now for we know precious little about this man and his professed belief in "change".

For several weeks now I've pointed towards minute 8 of Obama's Philly race speech and noted his "pandering" to Israel and denunciation of Islam. But, it occurs that pandering/denunciation is incorrect. Within the constructs of the dominant political menu, it is now "boilerplate" for all Democrats and Republicans to say such. Amazing how the dialog has been reduced to a generic, universal, required sound bite: Israel always good. Islam always bad. It's political suicide to say anything but. Very bad!

Also, note that Mr Obama not once mentioned in today's pronouncement the war in Iraq as a pressing issue for the American people. The good reverend surely did. And, Mr Obama, your statement that all Americans are outraged by your pastor's free speech is much akin to the very serious media blowhards that ascribe their beliefs to all of us "Americans". Spare us that trash, Senator, there's enough of that going around already.

You "ironed" that out so flat there isn't a single inflection, wrinkle or crease in the prose. Superhuman, subhuman, or inhuman prose control. I'm not too sure which, it took my breath away for a moment.

The Obamabots who whine about him being rightly called on the carpet for having the crashingly bad judgement of attending a church where a certified nutjob infects his parishioners with insane theories and antiquated notions are growing ever more tiresome in their absurd arguments...and you take the cake...

If you want an adult analysis of the situation, try this, from BBC...especially intriguing is one woman from a Philly suburb who makes a very salient point about Obama...I leave it to those who listen to discover it...:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/analysis.shtml

What I love is when Meredeith Vieira on Thurs.'s Today asks Michelle Obama about her reaction to Wright and she bobs and weaves and starts talking about how it detracts from talking about children...typical lawyer tactic...