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.

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

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

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.

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* -

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* -

"Finally, and worst of all, no matter how much he protests that Wright doesn't represent him or his thinking, the fact is he [Obama] sat in his church for nearly two decades, called him a spiritual mentor and family confidant, appointed him to an advisory post in his campaign, and in his so-called race speech refused to disown his two decade experience and relationship with him. This instantly makes his Wright protest sound like the wail of a politician running scared, and who sees the long, arduous, time consuming and patient work he put into building up public trust in him as the nation's great political hope fast washing down the drain."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-not-wright-is-obama_b_99294.html

Fun to read as all that "we are the change we've been waiting for" bullshit fizzles down the shithole.

I see others have come to answer your last posts, so I will just include a few links for you to check up on the facts (these may not be the best ones, but they're the best I've found in the short time) I'm afraid there is just no way to spin this as other than a lie, as harsh as that might sound:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/people-are-failing-to-comprehe.php or

http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/bill-clinton-outright-lied-about.html

or if you prefer to watch youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2pEZuBjMqM or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y