Yeah.. I'm thinking the same. My DNA, and better half might rebel though. :-) LOL.

To tell you the truth -- I've always voted Democratic -- but am now considering myself Independent (it happened when my Senators endorsed for Obama -- it's a long story I won't go into now).

The Wright issue alone does not bother me per se. In fact, I think Obama is dealing with it as well as he can -- as a politician w/ his meagre exprience would or should.

What has really made me question my love for the Democratic party and its ideals is what I have seen happen this primary season to the Clintons (whose legacy has been dragged through the mud), to a woman (I won't go into that here but you, as a Democrat should know what I speak of), to voters in MI and FL (do you want me to provide links?), and to the old and working class Americans (in the caucus process).

I'm not saying I'll find a home in RedState. I possibly will not. As I said, this has been an unsettling past couple of months for me -- and has made me question a lot of my assumptions.

Russert followed up with "doesn't this reflect badly on your judgement"? Which was good.

Question: Doesn't Hillary's continuing marriage to an unfaithful serial adulterer like Bill also reflect badly on her judgement?

Or is marrying someone less significant than having them for your pastor? Why aren't you challenging her on her poor judgement?

Obama has a soft spot in his heart for this particular church -- but isn't this the church that sold racist sermons online?

Sound's like you have a blind spot for Obama, and don't want the support of others who may disagree.

The only ones to use "media bias" as a crutch more than Hillary and her people are the wingnuts.

Hi Boston,

I don't have any doubt that Massachusetts won't go for the Dem this fall, but what's with the polls showing Obama tied with McCain there? Is that conceivable given what you know?

wrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrig htwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwr ightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwright wrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrig htwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwr ightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwright wrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrightwrig htwrightwright

Any other topics facing the country?  Any?

I watched Obama on Meet the Press this morning, and as always, I tried very hard to find a reason to like the guy -- but this appearance just reinforced my belief that Hillary is the better candidate.

On the food crisis, Obama gave a very superficial analysis of what is going on.  He tried to blame the food crisis on global warming.  But in fact, demand for food in China and India, rising prices of corn and other commodities, and rising fuel prices have a lot more to do with it.  None of these causes stem from global warming.

On Iran, Obama criticized Hillary for saying she would "obliterate" Iran in retaliation for an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel.  He would say only that he would respond in an "appropriate" way.  But that begs the question of what an appropriate way is, and he's never explained that.  

Surely if an American ally gets nuked, it is more than appropriate to state unequivocally that we'd retaliate -- that's the best way to be clear about our intentions and make sure that no one gets nuked in the first place.

On Wright, now Obama says that he's broken with Wright because something changed since last month -- "a sense that he was going to double-down on the statements that he made before."  This is simply not credible.  

Surely it is utterly predictable that a guy who thinks 9/11 was "the chickens coming home to roost" would "double down" when cornered.  Outrageousness begets more outrageousness.  If Obama can't figure that out, he has no place crowing about his superior judgment.

Finally, on the gas tax, I'm not sure who has the better argument on the merits.  Some people claim that a tax holiday would have no effect because it would only save the average American $25 per month.  But there are many examples of when seemingly incremental tax changes have big effects.  The bigger question is whether it would increase demand and thus have no net effect on gas prices.  I was impressed that Obama was willing to admit he was wrong to propose a similar program while in the Illinois State Legislature.

Carbanion: Kindly stop the attitude that presumes to tell someone to go to a Republican site simply because they have some problems with Obama in terms of his questionable close associations (add: Rezko & Ayers).  I've voted Democratic for 40 years...even when I supported the candidate who didn't win in the primary.  Because I believe that Obama's campaign insidiously race-baited the Clintons prior to South Carolina, coming to terms with that will be especially difficult for me.  And, for many of my very longtime Democratic friends.

And this is what I mean when I say Obamites tend to have a firmer grasp of reality.

Do you really think Clinton's going to win North Carolina...because she performed well on ABC?

Yeah, it was great when he dissed Clinton because Pres Bush will never sign the windfall profits tax this year, and then he proceeded to crow about what he would do to bring some relief - all needing the President's signature - that Bush will not sign this year. Russert never called him on that, since he is so in the tank for Obama. Otherwise the interview showed Obama to have learned some talking points well, but he sure didn't come off Presidential.  Petty, whining, irritated, maybe tired - in contrast to Hillary Clinton on ABC who came across, once again, in control, in command of the issues and facts, and provided the closing arguments that will guarantee her an IN win, and just maybe in NC as well. After all, she cane within .1%(7/~4000) of winning in Guam, when Obama was predicted by Obama's campaign to win by 11%.  If we see that kind of shift on Tues to Clinton, oh my.  That will be a game changer. You go, Girl!

You must have missed the show.

I guess all those economists who agree with him also failed Econ 101.

That's not true at all.  

The gas tax is essentially a VAT, assessed at the refinery level.  It's not like the sales tax you pay on a pair of sneakers.  Have you ever seen the word "tax" on a receipt from the gas station?  No.  

The refineries are taxed.  If we remove the tax on the refineries, we are HOPING they pass the savings on to consumers, but there's no guarantee they will.

I am still waiting for one historical example that shows a corporation NOT passing increased costs on to the consumer.

Just one, please, and I will stop asking this question.

Actually, the economists agree with him on this one.

"Fails econ 101 with his preposterous proposition that eliminating the gas sales tax only allowed the oil companies and retailers to just raise prices back to what they were."

Then so does Hillary backer Paul Krugman and every other economist -- all of whom say that Hillary and her cojoined twin McCain are pandering in a way that is not only ineffective, but hurtful in the long run.

He asked about nuclear and energy policy, and those were softballs?

Oh, wait, you think that a misstatement about something that happened before Obama was born and whether Obama might or might not have met a guy at a party once are hardball questions.  Take a hike.

vote for Obama:

1) He USES RACE when it benefits him, but launches vicious attacks on anyone else who points out the obvious ... that he is using race to his advantage.

2) He offers himself as a saviour whose very essence is one of reconciliation -- thus no one can criticize him without criticizing his essence.  

3) He doesn't think he needs to actually DO anything for people.   His very existence is enough.

4) He is arrogant beyond all belief.

of having an African father and a white mother.

It has caused him to seek a broader understanding of what divides/unites America.

Oh good lord.  Well, at least he's figured out a better flaw than keeping his desk messy.

I haven't watched it.  Are there not enough pressing questions about lapel pins and "Fingergate"?

Fool.  Hillary is staying in because we need her, we want her, and she knows it.

I figure the race will be over when Obama concedes.

You left out the rest of the quote, which was essentially...

"I don't think the race is over until Se. Clinton decides she is getting out, or once all of the primaries and caucuses have voted" (paraphrase).

She's two laps down with one to go. Obama's been kneecapped for 2 months and she hasn't gained an inch on him.

I'm sure the two most influential entities in the liberal blogoshere appreciate the publicity.

Right, and Hillary Clinton is also for the "regressive" gas tax, except for a few summer months.  A pure gimmick, lifted from John McCain's playbook.

She doesn't even know how to pump gas, for all the "I'm blue collar" posturing.  What does she know of gas taxes?

An outright pander, as even a lot of working-class voters I've seen interviewed seem to grasp -- talk about elitist condescension, thinking working-class voters are too ignorant or selfish to know when they're being pandered to!   No sane person who understands the economics of the situation supports her position.  

But yeah, maybe Senator Clinton can buy a few votes for a $30 savings per head.

No, I think you'll find that most people have a great deal of difficulty assimilating reality.

I haven't watched either of the programs because I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to get out of it. The mainstream media isn't going to ask any important questions of either candidate.

I'm Jewish and I find Hillary's nuclear militarism on Iran terrifying. Believe it or not, not all American Jews are Likudniks who want to obliterate the Arabs and Iranians.

Well, his answer on Israel doesn't make this liberal Jew unhappy.

What does make this reform Jew unhappy is Hillary Clinton's double standard on church choice.  If she says rather condescendingly that she would never have left Barack Obama's church, why doesn't she tell Joe Lieberman that she would never be able to belong to his synagogue, which not only segregates men from women, but also makes women sit in the back where their views are obstructed?

How do you define better?

Is everything about votes? If so, than Hillary's support of the Iraq invasion was/is correct!

"What good is an account, Mr. Username, if you are unable to... speak?"

It allows decrease of speech without decrease of membership.

Good allusion!

I don't think he looked tired or depressed at all.

However is it me, or is his graying quicker?

I love it!

Even if I can't rec it.

you pretty much nailed it.

OK Now lets see him open up the margin.

I think you've been living in a cave if you actually believe that.

That's military--too much typing and my fingers seem to hate the word.

Are people getting bitter over another bad Obama performance or something?

He does not do "hit pieces." that I've ever seen.

I agree.  

Geraldine Ferraro, is that you?

Obama said he gave Wright an opportunity for reflection... a second chance, if you will.  There's a difference between saying things to your congregation in the heat of a sermon and then repeating and enhancing the statements, years later after plenty of time to seek correction.

I, for one, want a president who understands that Meet the Press or a debate is not an appropriate forum for conducting foreign policy. One who is willing to pass up the opportunity to score a few political points.

You also don't use bluster about "obliberating" them in the hopes that they'll join in a dialog. That's just crappy diplomacy and has defined the Bush years.

On the contrary, it is very sound diplomacy.  You do not want there to be any strategic ambiguity about what we would do in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.  That leaves the door open for Ahmadinejad to think that he could launch such an attack and we would be too force-adverse to respond.

When everyone is clear on our strategic doctrine, we are in a much better place to say, "now that we've established clear parameters, let's talk about areas where we have common interests."  And that is how diplomacy gets done -- on the basis of common interests, not feel good statements about hope and change.

This is one point that Hillary grasps very intuitively and Barack does not.  It is a major reason why I chose to support her.

If you have to do deterrence, you have to be believable. You have to make it as clear as possible to the Iranians that if they even think about using a nuclear weapon on any country, they would be at the receiving end of our full retaliatory response.

If you are not believable and seem weak, your deterrence policy is not effective and a joke.

When JFK said in his speech during the Missile Cuban Crisis "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."

That is pure deterrence language. There is no equivocating. It is as clear as possible and the USSR knew exactly that we were not joking. They also knew that if they even get close to that red button, the world would be over.

In case Iran acquires a nuclear weapon (which we should do whatever we can do to stop them from getting/making one), we need to make it crystal clear to them that we are not joking when we say we would destroy you. This is the only way to make the use of a nuclear weapon so expensive and so tragic that one one can dare using it.

I agree that Bush gave the deterrence language a bad wrap with his bullshit for 8 years.

However, the deterrence language and policy and the first strike capability were the language/policy that kept the USSR from launching any nuclear attack on the US and its allies. Almost 50 years with 10000s of nuclear weapons aimed at each other and no one dared to launch one. This is quite an accomplishment.

I for one like the deterrence language of Senator Clinton. I don't support her, but i like her language when it comes to Iran. Iran is seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon because they want to accomplish a certain number of objectives. If they succeed on getting one, this is the only language that we should have with them. And it is not because Senator Clinton said it that it must be wrong.  

Hit Obama on his slight speech impediment.  That's very classy.  It's also classy to not listen to the content of what he's saying, which is smarter than any other presidential politician.

Anyway, the last 45 minutes were hard policy questions, and hte first 15 minutes were about Wright.  Where were the softballs?

Obama stated he will support Democrats, not Republicans, or Republicans in Democrat clothing.

So Hillary needs to decide if she is a Republican or a Democrat.

She needs to stop supporting McCain's gas tax holiday.  She needs to stop using words like "you're either for me or against me."  She sounds just like Bush.  She needs to decide which side she's really on: the oil company or the people of America.

If I were Obama, I'd be damn leery of having Hillary campaign for me.  There are many rational, eloquent Democratic women who could more than pick up the slack for her loss.  In fact, she should go back to the Senate and do what she can inside the walls of the Capitol where the public cannot see her.

I was a Hillary fan until she decided to go after Obama personally with distortions and outright lies.  He does not need her nearly as badly as she would need him.  

TexasDarlin, you surely haven't missed the dozens of times Obama has said that he'll work to put a Democrat in the White House even if it's not him, or the fact that his Organizing Fellowship will be out there registering voters whether he's the nominee or not.

You're being willfully ignorant.

What's unsettling is that you continue to spread false doubt that only helps Republicans in the end.

we are increasingly getting about race riots may actually work in the general election as well.   Just let Sharpton, Jackson, and Rangel threaten to trash the country with race/youth riots, and you might see a lot of people in positions of influence, including republicans in government and the mainstream media, caving in.   Once the media and government leaders cave, it's a relatively simple matter to brainwash the electorate.  

Please, I beg you, what should a good, solid, tough, and impartial interview of Obama look like?

Tim Russert, for all his faults, is not a panderer.

Seriously, you guys.  If Obama comes across well in an interview, you seem to have to believe that it's because it was a "fluff" interview... because he certainly couldn't possibly do well without help.  Right?

For all the praise Hillary got for going on O'Reilly, you'd think we had rather lenient standards for interviews around here.  But no.

There've been a number of clips from both McCain and Clinton in the last week talking about Obama.

He comes across as kind of a wimp.I think he must have either ran chicken or talked his way out of every conformation he was ever in.The Nevel Chamberlin of his generation thinks that appeasing Iran will keep them from making an Atomic weapon is laughable.Sen Clinton is correct in a corrosive foreign policy regarding Iran is the only way to stop them from going nuclear.Without the big stick and the carrot Iran will never come around.Clinton is the only hope,Obama will talk and talk then complain to the UN then the middle east will go nuclear,Saudi Arabia,Egypt,Etc..Obama is way to dangerous to put up as President.