It might be interesting to consider a gender-based comparision. What if a radical feminist/theologian was Clinton's spiritual advisor and was caught saying hateful things about "men in power?" What if the campaign was then all about gender? How would a speech on sexism and misogyny in response be received?

I think having race or gender be the "forefront" of any campaign right now could be difficult for the Democrats because of the current political context: war, rising prices, falling economy, home foreclosures, etc. I'm wondering if some voters might perceive a campaign about race or gender as a distraction???

Sent by Katherine | 3:43 PM ET | 03-19-2008

Clinton's win at all cost mentality is clearly divisive. The Clinton strategy has been to continuously remind the public that Obama is a Black Man. She knows that deep down, when White America is reminded of his race they will respond accordingly and surely come home. She is the clear beneficiary when race is the issue. She can only win the nomination if race is the central theme because she can not win on the issues. The irony is that she needs the Black vote to win in a general election. She has all but said that because Obama is black his candidacy is insignificant. How does she resolve her tactics of making race a divisive theme with the Black voters of America? If she win the nomination I don't I don't believe that she will win the general election because she will have alienated a significant portion of her base...Black and White...If Clinton wins America should brace itself for another 4 years of Republican rule in the white house

Glenn D
Austin,Tx

Sent by Glenn Dunlap | 3:56 PM ET | 03-19-2008

I was convinced Obama was a straight shooter, but now he's going back and forth about not having "been there" for the offending comments (and they are incredibly offensive). So, he can be thrown in with the majority of insincere politicians willing to do "whatever it takes" to get elected.

Rev Wright has also opened up a can of worms for a nation trying to overcome racial prejudice. Many Americans will wonder if the strides towards racial equity have only, for some reason, created a new divide. Terms like "social gospel" and "black liberation theology" appear to have set the nation back years.

Are these types of skeletons in the closets of Harold Ford, Colin Powell, JC Watts, or Condoleeza Rice? I doubt it and hope not. Regardless, the voting populace will now be forced to ask if a given candidate is part of some radical group.

What a shame.

Sent by Dan Mosqueda | 3:56 PM ET | 03-19-2008

Identity Politics, Thy Name Is Democrat.

Sent by deek | 4:23 PM ET | 03-19-2008

Rev. Wright's comments were offensive. They were Rev. Wright's comments not Obama's. Rev. Wright is a minister that has used offensive rhetoric to make points in his sermons but that does not mean that it represents Obama's view of America. Obama has a public record as a state legislator and senator that stands on its own. If there was racial bias in his public policies I'm sure this would have come out. Clinton is counting on the Xenophobia in the white middle class America to win the nomination in the same way Bush did to win a second term in office..To imply or or even think that Obama is part of some radical group is utterly ridiculous.

Glenn D
Austin,Tx

Sent by Glenn Dunlap | 4:25 PM ET | 03-19-2008

Well now, You guys are telling me you didn't see this coming? This is why I was an early John Edwards supporter. I was afraid that Hillary (as a woman) and Obama (as a black man) might not be electable.

Lets get real - its not about that! its CAN WE AFFORD ANOTHER REPUBLICAN! I say no so now I am supporting Hillary. If need be I will support Obama. We must not be sidetracked.

Sent by wsdirt | 4:40 PM ET | 03-19-2008

I disagree that Rev. Wright sermons were offensive to America, they were his and others perceptions of past and present injustices. You can't tell me that when you look at some of the headlines coming out of Americas media about issues across the country that we all can say that "America is all right"! Corporate greed, judicial intolerance for some and not others, political objectives for the gain of a few and not the many just to name a few, just don't seem like "America is ok"! Interestingly enough a lot of older blacks make the analogy that slavery has moved from the plantations of the south to the high rises of the north and that doesn't only have an effect on "Blacks, but all nationalities, which have the right to speak out against injustices on a soap box or at the pulpit! I recall that when the pictures of Abu Grahib surfaced that the predominant concern was "who leaked them" not "who authorized it"! That my fellow Americans is an injustice, especially when the person that leaked them is actually one of a few sitting in jail because of it! I also recall that speaking out against the war was and still is to some considered un-patriotic! I for one am not willing to sugar coat our American existence and I speak out against it every chance I get, nor do I sweep issues under the rug when the media is done reporting on it or the government inquiries cease! I think Americans should turn off the television, catch up on some news and study their countries history and realize that it's only been a generation or so since MLK stood in many pulpits preaching against injustice. There's isn't much of a difference then from now, except for laws that are in place that people still have to fight to inforce!

Sent by Christopher Robinson | 4:55 PM ET | 03-19-2008

The real tragedy in all of this is that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is being made out to be a harbinger of hate for America. When that couldn't be any further from the truth. Why is this man being demonized by the media simply for taking a critical look at America. A brief look at our history and one will clearly see that this country is founded on a tainted past. The problem with this entire "production" is that its really easy to be dismissive and write him off as crazy, rather than ask: What is it exactly that would motivate an otherwise intelligent man (Rev. Wright) to make such bold remarks. If we really want to be "responsible" (a word I've heard thrown around alot lately), we should address the fact that for most people of color there are two Americas: one for "brown" people and one for white people. A truth made quite clear following the debate between Mrs. Obama and Mrs. McKane where the former's comments about "finally being proud of America" were taken out of context. The issue of race is and has always been a taboo to discuss openly and honestly. And the one truth that has come out of this controversy is that we are still unable to deal with the core problems. Instead, we berate those who are bold enough to be honest and frank about their perception of the world in which we live. Until we can have an open and honest debate about the new face of oppression and the seemingly oblivious nature of the "majority" concerning matters of race and racism, we will never achieve "a more perfect union."

Sent by RCG Nashville, TN | 5:03 PM ET | 03-19-2008

Rev. Wright's comments were offensive to some. Rev Wrights' voice is not Obama's. Obama's brings a different approach to resolving the inequities an injustices of race and class. Similar to MLK he appeals to the humanity of America in order to form a movement. Martin Luther King used dialog to make change, believing that bi-directional communication humanity wins.I believe that Obama is about change and the comments of Rev Wright in no way represent him. Its not a matter of Obama or Clinton being electable. It's a matter of America overcoming bigotry and sexism that may not allow either of them to be elected.

Glenn D.
Austin Tx

Sent by Glenn Dunlap | 5:10 PM ET | 03-19-2008

I am completely and totally amazed that people (mainly Obama supporters) think the race issue was stirred up by the Clinton campaign. Talk about wishful and naive thinking! If you go to the Trinity Church web site it says very clearly on their About Us page "...we are unashamedly black..." That is a very line-in-the-sand comment. Imagine the reaction if Clinton went to a church that said it was "unashamedly white." I have some good feelings about Obama, but let's face it, he made his own bed on this issue, along with the help of Reverend Wright's big mouth.

Sent by Karen | 5:16 PM ET | 03-19-2008

@Ken
Race is in the political landscape because it is easy to write about and because it does not upset the whole lot of us. When we talk about race in America half of us are okay with the discussion and the other half gets pissed for even bringing it up. Your position in this piece unfortunately throws more fuel in the fire. That same fire that has kept this country divided and afraid to deal with race for my entire lifetime. It would have been refreshing if you would have written two paragraphs about all the possibilities the words, spoken by Obama yesterday, do to begin a positive dialogue.

Sent by Roger | 5:26 PM ET | 03-19-2008

Race is an issue, it has been an issue and so is sexism. To say that the Clinton campaign brought up the racial issue is wrong. I have been bothered with people denying that Obama's color has played a huge role which has brought out the black voters. Voting solely on the color and not the issues. Voters we could have used against Bush when he ran for the second term. If Obama knew that he would someday run for the presidency, he should have never been part of that church. You can preach all day long how it is a huge part of the black community and the style has been essential during slavery but the fact is, we are passing on racism and racist views to our children. Come on, we aren't perfect but we are in the right direction. Here is a suggestion, stop seperating ourselves by describing ourselves as African-American, Mexican-American, Asian-American. We are all proud of our ethnicity but we are united by our nationality. We are all Americans, we all created the American we see today. Stop the hyphenation and lets become one nation.

Sent by Jennifer from Austin | 11:58 PM ET | 03-19-2008

Let's talk about racism, and let's talk about one of the most pernicious forms of racism: lies whites tell blacks in pandering form.

When I was in Vietnam, blacks and whites and Hispanics were all thrown into the same living conditions. Guys would get killed, or go back to the world after having done their time, and new guys would come into the units.

Inevitably we had the new white guy who would arrive and try to impress the black guys by trying to act like a black guy. You'd have yourself a white guy trying to assimilate the walk, the slang, the music and the works.

And we'd laugh at him behind his back. All us black and white and Hispanic guys. We'd let it go on for a while. Sometimes it'd take one of the black guys just plain slapping the snot out of the newbie to get him to stop playing the fool.

That was a form of white guys trying to lie to black guys.

Now, in 2004, the white Michael Moore Liberal Utopians rallied behind John Kerry, and lost.

In 2008, the white Liberal Utopians think they saw this opportunity to unite themselves with the black voters to beat the GOP.

There is all this pandering Liberal Utopian talk about, "I'll be there forever for you, bro!" When everyone under the sun knows that Liberal Utopians can't stick to any one promise.

The smart black voter knows when he or she is being conned by the not-so-smart white voter. When push comes to shove, and things get ugly, the black voter knows that the white voter won't be there taking the heat. The white voter will have retreated back to white enclave safety.

The whole black and white campaign issue being used by Barack Obama has been flawed from the get-go.

Blacks are not universally stupid enough to fall for these white lies.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 9:33 AM ET | 03-20-2008

Fred, just curious: What is a "Liberal Utopian"? I've never heard of this party or group.

Sent by George de Man | 10:30 AM ET | 03-20-2008

Sent by George de Man: Fred, just curious: What is a "Liberal Utopian"? I've never heard of this party or group.

In a previous life you were Amish. But through a freaky quirk of Karma you returned as Democrats backing John Kerry and Barack Obama.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 11:38 AM ET | 03-20-2008

How often does Clinton have to speak to her gender? Not nearly as often as Obama has to speak to his race. Bush was elected to office by playing on white middle Americas fear of people of color and homosexuality, despite the economic despair that most of middle America was feeling at the time. Clinton is waging the same fear campaign as Bush. Bottom line, no democrat can be elected in November without the Black vote. Clinton can not win on the issues. Her argument that she is "ready on day one" because she was first lady does not hold water. If the race bating in the media and in the Clinton camp does not stop it will only alienate an important democratic voting block. People tend to forget that Bill Clinton excited and brought out black voters in what were record numbers at the time. Now that Obama has once again generated excitement in the black community he is somehow benefiting because he is black.This is the classic double standard. When Bill Clinton turned out the black vote it was said that he was inspirational, but for Obama its said that he is somehow benefiting because he is black not that he is inspirational...Its the old adage of Assertive White, Aggressive Black...
Obama is Americas first sense of hope and change since MLK and the Kennedy's. Instead of a bullet race is being used to kill the hope

Glenn D
Austin,Tx

Sent by Glenn Dunlap | 12:17 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Glenn D., you are wrong, Bush ran his fear campaign going after the religious group, not white America, he also used abortion as an issue as well. I know many black people who are gay and afraid to come out to their family because it is not acceptable. Why? Because of religion! Comparing Bill Clinton to Barack Obama is not a fair comparison. Many people have flat out said that the only reason that they are voting for Barack is solely on the color of his skin, not his politics. When Bill Clinton received a huge amount of support from people was because of his politics. "It's the old adage of Assertive White, Aggressive Black..." is not what I have heard, infact, I hear comments more closely related to gender. He's assertive, she's a bitch.
Try again Glenn,
Jennifer,
Austin, Tx.

Sent by Jennifer | 1:11 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Jennifer..I'm sure there are individuals that vote for Obama simply because he is black as there are people voting for Clinton simply because she is white and/or a woman and not because of her politics. I've heard people state that they wont vote for a black man.So one could argue that Hilliary is benefiting because she is white and not because of her message/politics and that would not be fair. The pendulum swings both ways. Suggesting that either is benefiting because of race or gender marginalizes the inspiration that one may find in the message of their chosen candidate. "Assertive White Aggressive Black" is not something that was/is said in the media. Its an old analogy, from the 60's, that speaks to how stereotypes are applied to different ethnic groups to describe the same behavior. You point out in your last comment how it is applied to gender. Bottom line, don't marginalize Obama's message any more then you should marginalize Hilliary's message simply because there are some that vote based on narrow perspectives. You can't have it both ways.

On one hand Bush used xenophobic rhetoric to speak to the religious right when it came to homosexuality, abortion, and "family values" and on the other hand he used race bating rhetoric speak to white middle America's fear of people of color(Muslims). In either case look where the country is because of fear and bigotry. Obama represents a change in politics Clinton represents that status quo.Consider the following presidents

Reagan/Bush Sr. 1980 -1988
Bush Sr/Quayle 1988-1992
B Clinton/Gore 1992-2000
Bush Jr/Cheney. 2000 - 2008
H. Clinton/?? 2008 - 2012???

Do you see a pattern. Two families have dominated the nations highest office for that last 28 years. If Hillary is elected it would be 32 years and 36 if she serves two terms. Its no wonder why America is in the condition its in. The leadership of our country stagnant at best.
How can the American dialog change when we don't have fresh and honest leadership in the white house?

Obama in 2008.It time for a new generation of leadership

Glenn D
Austin,Tx

Sent by Glenn Dunlap | 2:52 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Glenn, you talk about how we shouldn't marginalize either side yet that is what you are doing. I do not see the pattern you see that would suggest the condition of our country is because we had one Clinton in the White House. The reality is, Bush was greedy and not qualified and ran our country into this mess. Former president Clinton left us in the positive. As far as your last statement, the dialog will change under a fresh and honest leader in the white house but it isn't Obama. Obama has lied to us several times and only when cornered did he admit his mistakes. He is not as squeaky clean as most people believe. He is a politician after all. He is not as trasparent as he claims and we are still finding more and more about him. More will surface about Rezco, about Exelon, the nation???s largest nuclear power plant, or how the housing situation in his district has eleven buildings closed. There is more, I just want to make clear that Obama is making mistakes and even though I like Obama , I do not think he can make the changes we need for the whole nation to climb out of this economic mess or how the whole world views the U.S.A.
I will say, it's been good debating with you since I usually get extremely hateful people who are a little scary. :-)

Jennifer
Austin, Tx.

Sent by Jennifer | 4:55 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Jennifer..Not sure how I'm marginalizing either candidate.I'm just stating the obvious. To say that Obama benefits from being black is akin to saying that Clinton benefits from being white. You can not say one without saying the other otherwise you're hypocritical.

Obama put forth a Nuclear Bill that addresses the issues with Exelon in Illinois, but unfortunately the bill was weakened due to Republican partisanship.

Does NAFTA ring a bell..This was one of Clintons biggest domestic policy accomplishments. Buildings are closing throughout the Midwest because jobs are being exported. Its like Ross Perot said.."If NAFTA is passed that sucking sound you here will be jobs leaving America". Job lost is exactly what has happened due to NAFTA.

How about WhiteWater the questionable real estate deals in Arkansas. I do recall a few people served time for that deal.

How about the funds from Hillary Clintons leading fund raiser Norman Hsu, currently in prison for fraud and other pyramid schemes, that she donated to charity when she was caught taking the money from him.

Why have the Clintons not released tax returns to show where her money has come from to fund her campaign to the tune of $5Million Large.

Lets just say, if you live in a glass house don't throw stones.

On the issues Barack has a better plan on civil rights, health care, education,immigration, foreign policy, poverty..domestic policy...
If we talk on the issues and look at Hilliary, independent of her husband, there is no evidence that Hillary can make changes in policy that will prove beneficial to America.She is running on the Clinton brand, built by her husband.
To make matters worse she is a very partisan politician, Changes requires consensus not partisanship.

Let go of nostalgia, the 90's are over.

Our country is in trouble because we've not had diverse leadership in the the white house or congress. Clinton does not represent diversity in leadership and I would expect that she will bring many of her husbands colleagues back to the white house which means there will be no forward thinking..Its time to cut the cord to yesterday.

Obama 2008

Glenn D
Austin,Tx

Sent by Glenn Dunlap | 6:11 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Hello,

Why is the number of delegates needed to secure the Democratic presidential nomination still listed at 2,000+? It seems to me that with FL and MI pledged delegates (as opposed to superdelegates) at the very least the number required to win the nomination should be adjusted to reflect the fact that 413 pledged delegates are not possible to attain. The fair way to do that would be to reduce the number of delegates needed to win to 1,818 to reflect that the pool of available pledged delegates is now smaller than originally anticipated.

Sent by TJ | 7:01 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Hi TJ

Actually the 2000+ number does reflect the situation in regards Michigan and Florida. If you added those delegates back in, the number will go up, not down.

Tom Regan
Host News Blog

Sent by Tom Regan | 7:09 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Glenn, It's so funny how you say it's time to cut the cord to yesterday. You recite all the things that were associated to former president Clinton. The debate is between Hillary and Barack. NAFTA, Hillary has proven that she spoke out against it. [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]"I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that???s putting it mildly. I???m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn???t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there???s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she???s never been a great backer for NAFTA."
What about Obama's connection with NAFTA? Read this http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27620,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Rezco, still waiting for the full exposure on that. We do know that they have done business together and Obama claims that he didn't know that Rezco was being investigated? Please, it was all over the news while he was doing business. Where's the trust? He said he doesn't take money from lobbyists and one donor, John Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is a nuclear power industry lobbyist group. Trust is not one of his strong points at the moment. He is associated with a church that does not speak kindly about white people or America, nor will he leave the church. He lied that he didn't ever hear his mentor speak in such a way then when cornered fessed up to knowing. It didn't stop him from bringing his children to hear the racial attacks which keeps the nation seperate. He may tell us that he doesn't agree but yet where was his judgement in the matter. He wants to be the president for ALL Americans and he belongs to a church that is for one group. It even says that on the website.
As far as his issues on education, health care, and economics, Hillary has a better plan. My friend died because she didn't have health insurance, Obama's plan would not have covered her, only her daughter. Hillary's would have and if we had everyone covered, my friend would have been able to start the cancer treatments immediately. As for Hillary not being able to be diverse in leadership, I think she has done well, she has a record for fighting for civil rights. She is a fighter and we need that in the white house. Don't assume anything about her husband and his colleagues, this is about her and she has done well in New York without him. She has worked with people across the "aisle", she doesn't back down, she will dig her heels in and stand her ground.
Jennifer
Austin, Tx

Sent by Jennifer | 10:37 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Jennifer, You can defend her all you want. My point was that there is history on both sides thats suspect. Your attempt to say Obama's questionable dealings are worse then Hillary's questionable dealings is rather mute..Both have skeletons. Vote for who you believe in..Thats the American way. But you're delusional if you believe Obama is a criminal and Hillary is a Saint. And check your facts on Norman Hsu. He was without a question a Hillary fund raiser when she ran for the Senate in NY..He is also without question in prison

Obama 2008
Glenn D
Austin,Tx

Sent by Glenn | 1:39 AM ET | 03-22-2008

Sen. Obama's speech in Philadelphia will, in the future be compared to Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, and surpass it in importance. His speech addressed the issue, acknowledged the divisive nature of Rev. Wright's comments, and sought to reconcile the impression that the sound bites present with the reality of attitudes in America for both black and white.
America has always succeeded when it's actions were guided by righteousness. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, two world wars and the Cold War to name a few. But it seems that when we stray from acting for the right reasons (Vietnam), we ultimately fail. (Iraq may ultimately end up falling into this category.) We may not like the delivery sdtyle of Rev. Wright, but the message was uncomfortably accurate.

Prudent politics would dictate that Sen. Obama break any links with Rev. Wright, denounce him publicly, and move on as quickly as possible.Instead of practicing prudent politics, he addressed the issue in the manner in which I believe it should have been addressed. It is unfortunate that his response to the controversy may cost him politically. Seriously now, how many people in America put into practice all of the counsel that they derive from their minister's sermons. If everyone did, it would be like living in a modern day Utopia. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that this learned man would follow the worst advice of his minister and disregard the best.

A friend of mine drove to Florida with a couple of friends. He mentioned to a mutual friend, quite matter of factly, that he'd probably be stopped four or five times on the trip. When asked why he replied it was his experience, on more than one occasion, that a group of black men driving through the south will get stopped. We condemn Rev. Wright for fiery speeches delivered in an angry tone, but are oblivious to the white cop who pulls over a young black man for driving through on his way to a vacation.

I think that God has blessed America abundantly, and America is squandering the blessings of God. Obama offers hope to the weak, reassurance to the scared, and a vision for the future. No-one else does that.

Sent by Vincent Palmisano | 9:22 PM ET | 03-23-2008

I just question the judgment of Barack Obama and his wife for taking their two daughters to a church that teaches this hate! Children can't differentiate between this and what is right. They formulate hateful ideas early in life it's difficult to unteach. This explains a lot when it comes to Michelle Obama and the misconception of the Black community in general.

I think that Barack Obama needs to take a step away and everyone else associated with his campaign. For one they can't seriously think a man who exposes his two small children to this hateful speech could seriously think Americans would elect him. Do they think that the People in Idaho would renominate him after seeing this?

Everyone across those little states are furious and no one is saying that this is Jeremiah Wright we're giving Barack Obama a free ride except the idiots who didn't do the checking in advance and actually voted for the guy. There are a few brave souls who are saying "MAN HE LIED TO US!"

The Bill Richardson thing is obvious he just wants a cabinet position, possibly a Vice Presidency. It really doesn't matter what happens really with endorsements at this point, even as one person pointed out on one website that it didn't really matter anymore what the Democratic Party did to try to recondition Barack Obama he's Toast. No one can't possibly believe he'd be elected at this point.

I'm with Hillary Clinton all the way. If for any reason she isn't nominated I'll vote McCain. I'll never vote for a man I perceive to be unpatriotic and a man that I feel lacks serius judgment.

Sent by The Biz Kid Seattle | 3:16 AM ET | 03-24-2008

Glenn, Sorry you think that I was trying to say that Clinton was a Saint and Obama is a criminal. I wanted to prove to you after all these comments you made in support of Obama: "Obama represents a change in politics Clinton represents that status quo." or " How can the American dialog change when we don't have fresh and honest leadership in the white house?" and my favorite, "Obama is Americas first sense of hope and change since MLK and the Kennedy's." So, you can see that I am not delusional based off another comment you made, " My point was that there is history on both sides thats suspect." This is all I wanted to do, I know that both sides are first and foremost POLITICIANS. They both play the game. Obama has proven that he is not above it and Clinton has not denied it. I will say, I question his judgment about staying in a church that is extremely radical and offensive to America and white Americans. I don't agree with the church , I think it is sending a message of division, but rather his judgment that someday you will run for president and the church just might become a factor.

So I will vote for the person who will fight for America, Hillary Clinton speaks for me.

Jennifer
Austin, Tx

Sent by Jennifer | 10:21 AM ET | 03-24-2008

You go Jennifer! I've been reading this banter, and it doesn't take much to see through the rationalizations of supporters like Glenn D. If you are equating Sen. Obama with MLK and JFK, that is, in American terms, a sainthood. Barak Obama is no saint. and he is not a founding father of this country. He is an able orator and talented politician. With mucho ambition.
He is also very talented at mobilizing a very united voting block--one based primarily on race and race-based issues. And of course, the youthful enthusiasm of the students at college campuses. That is something that Sen. Clinton is not able to do as reliably, not on race, not on gender, or even economic status. Her voters must think for themselves, not as a block.
These are statistical facts people.
And it is no accident.
Obama's attempt at "settling" the race issue "once and for all" did nothing of the sort. It was a kinder, gentler version of his Rev.'s outlook on the racial history of the US. What about the total rounding up and brutalizing of our Native American population?
What about the politics of mutual difference, mutual suspicion and economic disparity within other ethnic groups? Or the fact that the hardest, dirtiest jobs in the US are often held by immigrants now, not by "blacks" or "whites"? His talk was rooted very much in the past, and did very little to move anyone forward. It just pulled a curtain back and let the nation see into his mind, and his very
able and cunning campaign.
He still has yet to really prove himself more than a talking head, and Hillary has a long history of hard work behind her. Those of us that are not as easily swayed by a monday morning quarter back appreciate someone who can prove their fastidiousness and dedication with years of service.
Even Obama's most dedicated supporters cannot point to many actual instances where he has achieved any of his lofty goals through his work in government. But they have the "hope" and "faith" that he will achieve it. But since he claims to be the faith healer of the free world, those are lofty goals.
Hillary, on the other hand, is way more rooted in reality, and understands that to work on the nations problems, we must do more than a "laying on of hands".

Sent by Allison Bryan, TX | 11:46 PM ET | 03-24-2008