there are three things i have huge problems with here:
1) asking Obama to make a speech about sexism is too much. should we also ask Hillary Clinton to make a speech about how badly racism has also pervaded these elections? and is it Obama's place, as a man to make this speech? he has already decried the horrible racism and sexism that's assaulted them. he and his campaign have not been behind any of the sexist attacks, either.
2) Obama's debate ability started off poorly, yes. but over the course of the primaries, he improved dramatically. by the end of it all, he and Clinton were going toe-to-toe. i have no doubt that he will trounce McCain in the debating arena. not to mention debating is not the only factor that should gauge the ability to be President. considering the round of debates this year and the asinine "moderating" by Tweety, Gibson, Blitzer, et al, debating actually might be the most inaccurate meter of who's best to be President.
3) Obama also knows how difficult the upcoming battles will be. the difference i've always felt was there between Obama and Clinton (and with Edwards) was the manner of approaching those battles. Clinton and Edwards increasingly looked like they were going to attempt what the Clintons did back in the 90's with healthcare: have a closed, my-way-or-the-highway process that rubbed fellow Dems the wrong way and ensured that the effort would fail. it didn't bring in voters. it didn't try to woo either Repubs or Dems into the process. it was a plan that was round peg for a square hole.
one of the main reasons i strongly supported Obama first is because he understands that nothing will get done unless the voters themselves are brought into the process, that's its vitally important that you aren't just working for Americans, you're working alongside and with Americans. a participatory Government gets people to see why issues like healthcare and ending the war are so important in their own lives.
i'll be the first to believe that Clinton's intent in what she said was to not imply the threat of assassination against Obama.
however, we're getting a very problematic picture here.
the argument for Clinton's candidacy has in part been buttressed by the claim that she's "vetted", that she's the strongest politician of the Democrat party. and yet somehow her words here should be shrugged off as a "slip of the tongue".
someone as consummately prepared and "packaged" as Hillary Clinton would not be making "slips of the tongue".
for whatever reason, she chose the particular example of RFK on purpose. it was at best a bad mistake given the hospitalization of Teddy Kennedy and the actual death threats phoned in against both Obama and Clinton.
what. Hillary's "experience" during her time as First Lady is FABRICATED. her lies on the Tuzla "sniper fire" and on Northern Ireland are indicators as such.
Obama worked as a community organizer doing direct community-based action since he left law school, and has more real-world legislative experience than Hillary when it comes right down to it.
and the most damning thing of all is that Hillary's DC experience has corrupted her. she is as much a DLC Democrat as Bill was back during his day. what does that mean? maintenance of corporate power at the cost of regular citizens.
the kind of "debate" we saw last night shouldn't be happening AT ALL.
not for Clinton. not for Obama. not for McCain, or Edwards, or Romney, or Huckabee.
what was on the television last night is a new low level which should not have been reached by any debate period. we've apparently lowered our standards in deference to corporate media. that's extremely saddening.
this entire line of argument lacks any sort of sense. you're asking Obama to apologize for everything every supporter of his has said. why don't we just ask him to stop global warming, or stomp China's repression of Tibet singlehandedly while we're at it?
fine. we hold McCain and Clinton to the same high standard then. Clinton especially has to answer for Mark Penn's Colombia shenanigans, or his firm's union-busting antics, or for the dozen or so vociferous internet bloggers out there claiming that Obama won't win because he's black, or for Taylor Marsh's continued idiocy on the airwaves lying about Obama's record. because damn, Clinton's responsible for it all.