I believe that even though Obama was caught up in the media's attempt to prove him mortal, he responded like a true leader in these backtracking moments. Because of last week's controversy he may in fact receive better results than he may have otherwise. The fact is that the people already knew how he reacted while he was ahead, but now they also know what he does when he is behind. He sits back, analyse, and talks to the people. That's a true presidential performance. With regards to Clinton, she has not shown this type of character. In addition to that, now she could find herself in the middle of the controversy regarding the purposeful embelishment of her record and the mistrust concerns. I will be surprised if she can diverge the media's attention from this because it is a losing battlefield for her.

Sent by raul | 9:11 AM ET | 03-24-2008

The odd part of all this is that neither of the candidates are interested in the people they will represent. They will not push the adgenda they are running on, they will only work to get re-elected in 2012 if they succeed in this election year.

Sent by R Shively | 10:09 AM ET | 03-24-2008

One of the key elements of a president is to take the moral highground on substantive issues. Senator Obama did exactly that when he spoke about the issue of race in America. In doing so, he not only described the history of America and race, but also told a story of what could be should we decide to come together as a nation and look to our better selves to forge a the next great chapter of America. His speech truly showed leadership at its heights.

Sent by Jeff in the Redwoods, Arcata, CA | 10:20 AM ET | 03-24-2008

"Aide's Remarks Knocked But Omama Up in Polls"

Trying to mix three stories into one makes both Obama and you look bad.

Either do a story on Obama's poll standing, and do it complete.

Or you do a story on Bill Richardson, and do it complete.

Or do a story on General McPeak condemning Bill Clinton as being a McCartyite. And do that story complete.

By tryign to mix three (slanted) stories into one, it shows you are trying to protect Obama by ommiting facts of the story about McPeak's denouncement of Bill Clinton.

That makes Obama look like he's hiding something, and it makes you look like you are helping Obama hide something.

Anyway, this is one of the reasons I'm going to be focusing on the 'Get My Vote' project. As a means to open up the political discussion to a more open and objective level.

Hey, why aren't you Liberal Utopians jumping on the 'Get My Vote' project. Will that have to make you think too much?

And doesn't give you much of a chance to do Little Red Book chanting for the Obama guy?

Ya know, NPR has to come to grips that come November, you guys are going to see the end of the Liberal Utopian run that has been blaming 9/11 on the CIA, and such.

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys.

Go see my comments on Kinky Friedman's video opposing the Death Penalty, and let's open up the conversation around here to a little more intellectual level?

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:22 AM ET | 03-24-2008

Is Obama not mortal? I still cannot understand all the hype surrounding Obama. I never heard of him before his election to the IL senate. Twenty- somethings act as if he was Elvis with all the screaming- is it because he's cute? what can they possibly know? He sounds like a preacher man to me. He doesn't have a definite plan on anything- just 'change'. If you remember, Bush/Cheney ran on the 'change' agenda. Don't sit there and imply the Hillary and Bill don't care about this country. They and their ancestors have lived and learned and loved this country a long time. I have dread for this country.

Sent by pgs | 10:31 AM ET | 03-24-2008

I look forward to a time when American voters outgrow the current alternatives of hating, versus not hating, a candidate.

Sent by George de Man | 10:41 AM ET | 03-24-2008

I'm shocked to see religious leaders failing to rise up to the occasion and comment about Wright's controversial sermons,either by condemning or asking for forgiveness. since when did we we have to pay for other peoples' sins according to the teachings of the bible?. Some presidential candidates are treated ruthlessly.

Sent by george ngugi | 10:42 AM ET | 03-24-2008

in response to "pgs" -your comments about Obama result from your lack of knowledge about him. If you check out his website, he offers many plans for this country-many of them are similar to that of Hillary's while some do differ from hers. It appears as if the Clinton message that Obama is all speeches and nothing else has worked in your case. However, although he does make amazing and thought provoking speeches, there is a great deal of substance behind them. Also, are you implying that Obama's ancestors have'nt lived and learned and loved this country???

Sent by jen | 10:53 AM ET | 03-24-2008

I'm tired of Obama! Get rid of him!

Sent by Pam | 10:54 AM ET | 03-24-2008

I think Gov. Richardson is right; it's time for this race between Obama and Clinton to end very soon, before the Democratic candidates' surrogates do some permanent harm. Senator Clinton, former President Clinton and their surrogates are sounding increasingly desperate and I am beginning to lose my admiration for her with the tactics she has used re: Florida and Michigan, lies about her arrival in Eastern Europe under sniper fire, negative comments about Senator Obama, etc.

Sent by Susan | 11:11 AM ET | 03-24-2008

This is a very strange twist on the political scene; it introduces a new and perilous method of electing a president. The press, and none is exempt (since they are all driven by ratings) elected the next president of the United States of America. The debates were mediocre, the coverage bias and sensational.
The people have had hardly anything to do with the process. The elections that technically are to take place in November have already taken place and Obama is already anointed by the bias media coverage of the self right press pundits who have spewed so much unnecessary venom against the Clintons so that they themselves could maintain favorable ratings in the so called "press club".
I am neither for Clinton or Obama however, had I been a practicing male chauvinist I would be desperately seeking redemption. Legitimate questions that the press could have asked Obama from the beginning were never asked by the press that should have been more responsible to the public. Example, Mr. Obama touts that he has not supported the war. That???s like me and you saying that we did not endorse the Civil war, the first and second world wars, or the Vietnam War. He nor you and I were there to support them so now we can be Monday morning quarterbacks and say we did not. Ask him what his position on the Afghanistan war was. It is relatively safe to take one after and sound pretty intelligent about it. He is a liberal politician. In the beginning Hillary Clinton was berated after Iowa for having some of her older supporters with her. Look at her, you said ???Old School???. Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Richardson. New School?
Either way the press has taken away the true right off the people to cast a fair vote in November. I can hardly wait for 2012.

Sent by Reggie Thoma | 11:22 AM ET | 03-24-2008

i am amazed at the fact that the one who authorizes war, rolls heads of the fellow americans, promotes the crumbling of the economy is deemed 'patriotic'! And the one who has been a critical insider with a wonderful introspective vision is hinted at being unpatriotic? Give me a break!!!

Sent by sukanya | 11:34 AM ET | 03-24-2008

I agree with George de Man. What do we gain from saying we need to "get rid of" a candidate? What does that contribute to the debate? Let's put some pressure on our candidates to respond to each other like grown-ups and civic leaders (especially during the nomination process, when there should be some party unity--although I think the right kind of internal debate is healthy).

This ongoing nomination process could be casting exciting media attention on the Democratic party, getting Democratic voters enthused and attracting independent voters who are over Republican policies. I'm not totally convinced that this _isn't_ happening, but I wish the candidates would do more to keep the exchange clean and focused on issues (and race _is_ an issue!). They're making voters feel defensive and territorial instead of engaged in a real, substantive conversation. Or that might just be due to the way the media frames everything. Who can tell anymore?

Sent by Michelle | 11:37 AM ET | 03-24-2008

For those who continue to question whether Obama has a "definite plan for anything" aside from "change", I urge you to visit his website and go to the issues section, where you can read about his plans in detail. Incidentally, they are, in many respects, remarkably similar to those of Hillary Clinton. And to those who continue to question Obama's lack of experience and ability to lead in a crisis, I think his response last week provides clues as to how he responds to adversity. I didn't see knee-jerk, panicked, band-aid responses. I saw thoughtful, real-life evaluation of the situation even with the knowledge that it may not be popular. Perhaps the problem lies with our ability to use rational thinking and to look beyond the headlines.

Sent by Jen | 11:55 AM ET | 03-24-2008

In response to "fred camorra call": I think that the author actually did a decent job in this story. It shows the connections between the various remarks/ reactions rather than treating each as a separate incident (which seems to be what you would have prefered). Also, what is your hang up on "liberal utopians"? I don't think it's fair to lable either candidate as such, any more so than it would be fair to call McCain a "conservative utopian". Rather, I think that both Obama and Clinton are run-of-the-mill Democrats who are presenting pretty modest plans (e.g. affordable health care; not exactly Marxist) for their Presidencies. And, finally, why the gripe with NPR. As the only objective source of news that I have found to date, perhaps you should consider saving your critisisms for those who deserve our derision, i.e. the cable news outlets. Peace.

Sent by JLC | 11:58 AM ET | 03-24-2008

This is a quote of Bill Richardson responding to James Carville's "Judas" remarks:

"I am very loyal to the Clintons," said Richardson, but he said he wanted something beyond "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton." "You know, what about the rest of us?" he asked.

So...let me get this straight, Bill Richardson...Clinton shouldn't feel "entitled" to the Oval Office because of a family legacy, but you feel entitled because you don't have a family legacy? So we should elect our leaders based upon who their relatives are or are not? Hey, Bill Richardson, how about we elect our next President based upon their intellect and leadership abilities?

Sent by Karen | 12:00 PM ET | 03-24-2008

Yes, this is from the Roswell, New Mexico newspaper.

So, Bill Richardson decided to endorse Obama because Bill Richardson fell asleep during one of the debates.

And Obama woke him up.

This is reall good news for America.

ROSWELL DAILY RECORD
Saturday, March 22, 2008

But there were also personal aspects to Richardson's swing behind Obama. He noted that both are the sons of one foreign-born parent - Obama's father was from Kenya, Richardson's mother was from Mexico.

And Richardson told of the time, during one of the many Democratic debates, when his attention wandered and he didn't hear the question that came at him. Obama, then his rival, bailed him out by whispering to him that it was about Hurricane Katrina.

"He could have thrown me under the bus," Richardson cracked, "but he stood behind me."

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 12:13 PM ET | 03-24-2008

The Richardson endorsement is signficant. Make no mistake about it; if it weren't, the Clintons wouldn't be tearing him down now. Richardson is right: the Clintons like to wallow in the gutter, claw, and sling mud. That's no way to move the country forward from the deep divisions and wounds of the past 15 years. Hillary may be bright in some respects, but I cannot respect her intellect when she fails to act like an adult.

And, Karen, where did Richardson claim an entitlement to the presidency? The "rest of us" means nearly 300,000,000 million Americans who are not Hillary or Bill Clinton.

Sent by Leo Bloom | 2:49 PM ET | 03-24-2008

Fred, I think your comment missed the timing of the Richardson endorsement. He didn't endorse Obama at the debate where Obama was fair to him. That was a few months ago. I'm sure Richardson has thought about much since then, especially because he knows what it means to go against the Clinton machine. Your comment is insulting to his intelligence and reveals a jejune sensibility on your part.

Sent by Leo Bloom | 2:51 PM ET | 03-24-2008

Leo, the point of my comment was that the election should be based upon factors other than a family tree. So yes, any of the other 300,000,000 citizens of the U.S. should be able to run for the office of President regardless of who their relatives are. Richardson, through his statement, implies that any of those 300,000,000 citizens who are related to someone else who's been President shouldn't be elected. I think those who argue that it's Clinton's "turn" are silly, and likewise I think those who argue that it's some new person's "turn" is equally silly. This isn't kindergarten and we're not standing in line. Richardson's statement also implies that there's no individual thought...that Bush junior is the same as Bush senior, and that Bill and Hillary are the same. It just wasn't a very persuasive argument on his part. And I'm pretty sure that Richardson had himself in mind (either now or later)...if memory serves me correctly, didn't he just run for President?

Sent by Karen | 3:34 PM ET | 03-24-2008

Karen, no one said Hillary and Bill share a brain. They probably don't even share a bed at this point. The point of Richardson's comment is that it is time for a change from the go-nowhere scorched-earth approach of the last 15-20 years. The Constitution was framed as an attempt to escape political dynasty and concentration of political power. The Clinton machine and the Bush machine are two prime examples of what is wrong with politics and influence peddling in this country. So I would say that the family tree is a relevant factor, but not the only one. I don't think Richardson implied it is the only one. You're just reading him too narrowly.

Sent by Leo Bloom | 4:21 PM ET | 03-24-2008

Oooh Leo, low blow.."No one said Hillary and Bill share a brain...or a bed". Apparently you do not choose to express your ideas with couth or class. In this politcal race for nominee, it seems that many are acting like adolescent bullies. Please, leave that banter at the mall or the mud, eh, dude?
I don't think it should be taken lightly that Bill Clinton was a heck of a President, and Hillary was a distinguished first lady--despite very public personal scandals. Scandals that had JFK been president in our media saturated modern era, he would've certainly been a candidate for, "Happy Birthday, Mr. President..", anyone?
Now I think the real point of this election, is who the heck can tackle the mess left by the totally inept Bush Jr.? This guy has wrecked our nation, and no amount of hand-holding-feel-good-philosophy will magically cure our crisis'.
I am personally not concerned with last names or speeches, but moreso with actions and policies.
We will need a capable leader to sort through the rubble of the Bush/Cheney mess-- Not a professor with a constituency whose collective maturity level rests around 6th grade.
Enough with the lectures!

Sent by Apr | 7:58 PM ET | 03-24-2008