First Obama was attacked for his association with Rezko. Obama didn't do anything illegal at all. Rezko contributed to Obama's campaign. Obama admitted that it was a mistake to associate with Rezko.

Now the attack is Revered Wright. Obama has admitted Revered Wright has said some outrageous things in Sermons over the years. Obama has not condoned the outrageous statements and beliefs of Wright. He was a member of his church for the same reason most people are. For spiritual guidance.

Obama has been nothing but honest with America. He's had many opportunities to mislead and lie to us, but he's chosen to take the high road. He's admitted to mistakes and poor judgement. He's taken the time to explain his point of view and reasoning for his actions. He's an imperfect but responsible adult. I give him full credit.

Much of the national press, the Clinton capaign, and Republicans have been relentlessly attempting to label Obama. The frustration for them is that the branding of Obama has failed. Obama has brought about a new voter. One that isn't easily manipulated by the standard political packaging of a candidate.

Obama has impressed so many people by running a campaign on national unity. Its a message that has resonated with so many new voters who were turned off by the simplistic juvenile slime politics of the past. He's run an amazing campaign and created a motivated and dedicated group of supporters.

Obama 08!

But it has given us a glimpse of his strength. Very impressive.

Are you people really blind? How can you do your job every day with such a poor ability to see reality?

[[ First Obama was attacked for his association with Rezko. Obama didn't do anything illegal at all. Rezko contributed to Obama's campaign. Obama admitted that it was a mistake to associate with Rezko. ]]

Can anybody older than 10 years really think that what Obama did with Rezko was just a mistake? How long did they know each other? How many things did they do together? If you had been in his shoes and you had been a politician, would you have accepted the deal that Rezko presented to you?

Now Steve, you know better than that. The lawyers conducting the case have presented evidence and all agreed that there was no Obama connection, he isn't even being called. And, as you like to point out how mature you are, you know that it is all but impossible for any politician to have a career when they haven't had some connection to a shady character. Shall I list you all of Hillary's? You really need to get over this fixation of yours. Clinton has lost the race, the sooner you come to terms with it, the happier you, and Hillary, will be. :-)

SandyB,

[[some connection to a shady character]]

You are right, and I also know that Hillary has had connections to shady characters too. But Rezko is more than a simple occassional connection, and you know that.

On the other hand, are you telling me that both Obama and Hillary are similar in that aspect. Well, at least Hillary did not say that she was a new type of politician.

Let me tell you this, if you check the political history of several countries, you are going to see that they have also had their Obamas, and these politicians also said that they were a new breed. Unfortunately for those countries, they ended up being worse.

Just to give you an example, I was appointed to a position in South America, where I saw the emergence of Fujimori. He used to reject old politics, and he even gave long speeches about trascending partisanship, and the like. When I saw him on TV, I knew he was a lier and a bandit because I know that political action is not easy and because to improve things just a little you really have to work very hard and with different types of people. I knew that so called saints cannot do the job. Of courses, at that time none at the embassy thought that I was right. They thought that he was going to make his country a new superpower in less than two decades (Believe it or not, that was said to me by a PhD graduated from George Washington University). The problem for the people of that country is that Fujimori was a real crook and stole millions of dollars, killed many innocent people, and even fled to Japan.

I could give you several other examples of this type of "change" politicians that I have seen in other parts of the world in the last ten years, and believe not one of them was better than the politicians of the old school. So I prefer to take my chances with someone like Hillary, who might not be perfect, but whom we all know very well already.

Steve, let me get this straight...because you saw one politician who talked of "change" who turned out to be evil, then......all politicians who talk of change are evil. You disappoint me, this is the most pathetic argument I have heard come from you! What you are really saying is that, like a baby's old blankey, you want something comfortable and known, no matter how ratty or soiled. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, and Steve, you are one fearful dude.

Well, SandyB.

In my 30 year career serving our country, I have seen several more than one of those crooked "change" politicians before. No only one. Besides I have also studied World History, not only American history, and there I have found many more of these Obamas. But I know. I know that you Obamabots seem to dislike experience.

Second, I support Hillary not only becuase she is better than Obama but also because I believe in her vision about the America that we want. I am definitively a moderate and know that things cannot be done as easily or as fast as we might want to.

Now you say that I am a fearful person. Well many people would say that you are making a hasty conclusion because you do not know me. You do not know what I have done or what I have not done. Some days ago you called me unAmerican and now a fearful dude. I would never dare to say anything like this to you because I simply do not have enough information to make a serious assertion about anybody here. So how can you? Do you know something that the rest of us don't? Do you have some sort of superpower? Are you a seer?

Anyway, I have to go to work now. It was still good to talk to you. Have a nice day, SandyB.

SteveAustin:

Anyway, I have to go to work now.

Those burgers are not going to flip themselves.

Yes, experience is great. You know who has alot of experience...George W. Bush. He's been president for nearly 8 years now. Do you think he would make a better president than Hillary? You know who else has alot of experience...John McCain. What about him?

Let's suppose Hillary gets the nomination...what theme will you be repeating over and over then? Experience? I know that you don't like me, Steve, because I pick on you, but, seriously, I'd like to know. I just think the "experience" claim is doomed if Hillary gets to round 2. Hillary or Obama would have that problem against McCain, that's why this election will have to be about issues rather than time spent in Washington.

I'd be curious to know if you were this frightened of John Edwards during either of his runs for the presidency. A relatively unknown, first-term senator...were you having flashbacks of Fujimori then? Or were you solidly behind the "experience" candidate, John Kerry, from the beginning? That worked out great for the Dems, huh? I think we know what we're getting with Obama. His life is pretty well documented, and he's never struck me as the fraudulent type, considering his long record of public and community service. Why are you so suspicious of him? It wouldn't be because...nevermind, I won't go there yet.

Ziggy Tosh,

Wow, that was quite an argument. You must be proud of yourself! Wow. It was really an honor to be addressed by such an eminence as you!

garyxxx,

Come one. Bush is not a good counterexample because he is not smart. Obama is smart. Hillary too.

Not much of a response, Steve. Experience is everything...unless you're stupid...does that make sense? But, I guess that means that you're willing to concede that Obama's or Hillary's lack of experience shouldn't be a hinderance when going up against a dummy like McCain.

Not willing to address the John Edwards question, though?...I just was wondering if your suspicions about "emerging" candidates was "equal opportunity", or did you not have the same fears when Edwards was running? I would assume that you were a staunch supporter of the "experience" candidate, John Kerry, who was a disaster as a presidential candidate. If I'm wrong, and you were a supporter of Edwards, then why no Fujimori flashbacks about him? I was a Dean supporter in '04, although I liked Edwards as well.

gary1134,

I am at work now, and can not spend more than a few seconds to answer. I will answer your comments tonight or tomorrow morning.

hawaiimike:

The frustration for them is that the branding of Obama has failed. Obama has brought about a new voter. One that isn't easily manipulated by the standard political packaging of a candidate.

I'm a big supporter but I don't give Obama full credit for the change. Bush's campaign along with Rove crossed such a huge line that people have started to wake up.

It's not just young people on this. We've learned to distinguish "practical politics" from abject cynicism and the internet appears to be turning around and helping spread awareness rather than just giving people a place to find confirmation of whatever garbage they prefer to believe. We've paid a very high price to be shocked back into our senses but I think Nader might have done us a favor, historically speaking. I doubt the people of Iraq will agree any time soon.

Thanks, Steve.