Senator Obama has not changed in his position on anything, this is the widespread spin directed by the corporate owned government under the GOP. He has demonstrated strength in judgment, which is exactly why he was chosen to lead the Democratic party in this election, based on his intelligence, education, experience as a civil rights lawyer and professor of constitutional law, past legislation, and proven judgment in standing up against authorization to go to war with Iraq and legislation he has authored or co-sponsored. He is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs and certainly has access to information the American people do not have. He was chosen to make the tough decisions, and ordinary citizens should stand by him when he does!

thank god for women who stand up for obama.

As one of the first to usually criticize Joan Walsh, primarily because of her tendencies to parse endlessly in defense of the status quo, (i.e. "centrist" positions to "reach out"), I have to defend her here because she calls it exactly like it is. Senator Obama's rising popularity over the last year has been primarily due to message, not any clear cut stances on issues. His recent actions have run counter to this "message," with yesterday's among the most reprehensible... and yes, indefensible.

Nearly as reprehensible are his defenders, as are those who constantly criticize those of us who would cast our vote for Ralph Nader in protest. The tired old blame game over Bush vs. Gore demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of *everything* that transpired then, and denigrates those of us nuanced enough to carefully consider our votes in states where the luxury of sending a message should be safely prioritized over another empty vote for a show of numbers. And instead of criticizing those not living in "safe" states, go cry to Obama and his colleagues who needlessly capitulated once again to this so-called "president" and his cronies. They're the ones who have been wasting our votes by either stealing them or dismissing them outright.

Ms. Walsh clearly outlined what transpired yesterday, and why most would still hold their nose and vote for Obama in November anyway. I'm just glad I don't have to.

"Cue the scary horror flick music! Joan Walsh is back from vacation. AAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHH!!!!

(Of course Joan wasn't REALLY off on vacation. She was off having lunch meetings to pitch MSNBC execs, begging them to give her a bigtime primetime teevee show so she can show off her astounding political punditry talents...)"

http://salonparody.blogspot.com/

Making fun of what salon has become indeed. :)

Unfortunately Obama has turned out to be just another equivocating democrat. I predict that Nader will do better than ever this time and if Mc Cain wins they will again blame their loss on him rather than their perfidious nature.

I'm in no way defending what Obama did. I just think some of the criticism is over the top.

Would somebody please notice that GW Bush committed a felony and wiretapped illegally for years and what little FISA coverage there is is mysteriously about the election.

I'm sorry, but as angry as many people are about Obama, who is the crook here who shredded the constitution? And why is he kicking back with a beer while people stomp on their Obama 08 buttons?

CLUE IN PEOPLE!!!!! CLUES ARE YOUR FRIENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesse Jackson said it to someone in private, not in front of a camera. He was expressing anger, albeit in a less than polite way, about Obama and the way he has been using black people.If Jackson had said he wanted to rip out Clinton's uterus it would have been sexist, just like most of the coverage of her, but I do not know how it would have been racist. I found Jackson's remarks funny because it was diametrically opposed to the fawning media coverage about how Obama has been good for blacks. As a black woman, it has been infuriating for me to hear how this man, who has used black people to climb the political ladder, is good for me. Jackson's remarks may have been disturbing in that they were violent, but so were Keith Olbermann's remarks that a super delegate should take Hillary Clinton into a room until only one of them comes out.

Nothing goes over better with the white Republican or Reagan Democrats that he is trying to court than telling black people how immoral and shiftless they are. There are reasons why Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and JC Watts are so popular among otherwise racist Republicans. But hey, it is politics, right? It just so happens that your sainted Obama, who promised a new brand of politics went back to the old playbook. I am not going to be unfair and just blame white voters. Tsk-tsking like Obama's goes down quite well in black churches where moralizing, homophobia, and a general denunciation of black youth are common fare. He gets up there talking in his "black brogue," a way of speaking one can assume he never took up whilst living in his white household and starts up the engines of telling us what's wrong with us. I guess he has known what he has disliked about all things he thought were black seeing as he went by the name Barry for so many years until it became hip or politically expedient to go back to his Arabic name.

If Obama were so concerned about the state of blackness in America, why was he so conveniently silent about the situation of the Jena 6? Or why did he not call for the commission of a division of the Justice Department to handle police brutality cases because cities are obviously inept (a funding and man power issue, mainly) in the wake of the Sean Bell verdict. I think it would have taken incredible courage of him to say that not every homicide is a crime, but that the harassment of black men by the police does deserve attention at the federal level because it does constitute civil rights violations. Oh, wait, he likes FISA so screw civil rights.

You and so many people say that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or in your case, me say that when we feel that Obama talks down to black people, we are making ourselves "self-appointed" spokesmen of black people. It is called an opinion. I am not anointing myself the spokeswoman of black people because unlike the white media, I do not see my people as a monolithic herd that has one shared mentality. Some people can speak for some factions should that faction view him or her the face of their politics and some factions can choose another.

If anyone feels he is the spokesman on race it is Obama. He took it upon himself to give what everyone, you included, is the defining speech on race. He is entitled to his opinion, but despite what you might think, not all we simpleminded black folk think alike. I happen to think that going to a church and telling people what they need to do and what they should do and why they are in the condition they are in, is quite condescending. He upstaged Bill Cosby on that one. Answer me this: how come you call Jesse Jackson the self-appointed leader of all things black, but your beloved bi-racial Barry can speak for us? Please tell me why it is okay for him to give a speech on race without incurring the same accusations from you and others?

I think I know why: because he gave a speech that made white people feel better about the racist past, present, and future of this country. If Cornell West gave a speech on the same topic it would be a lot less comforting to white people. Obama essentially told everyone that race disputes are things of the past and that he is not so wed to the "conflicts of the '60s." Well, I was born in 1979 and my life is unfortunately still wedded to the behavior of the 1760s.

Please do not presume to declare a spokesman for me or a candidate who is good for me or that I believe myself a spokeswoman for black people. I am a black woman with an opinion. I am not sorry if that offends you.