Cyrena:

Thank you for the “expounding.” It did in fact clear up the issue.  And I basically agree with you on your overall comments.

Peace.

• Hmm...Are you sure you don’t want to retract that before you look hopelessly foolish?  A discussion about Israel - and a candidates’ words, positions and feelings about Israel and anti-semitism - “doesn’t belong in a debate” for candidates for president of the United States?  I can’t tell if you are suggesting that their views on anti-semitism are IRRELEVANT to the discussion or are the ONLY relevant discussion.  In either case, I honestly don’t even know what to say to this, it is so incredibly bizarre.

No Maani,

I don’t want to retract any of this, though I’m glad to expound on it.

I was referencing (in this message that you reworded) my own feelings about a discussion of ISREAL in the same breath as anti-Semitism, and you damn well know it. You’ve chosen to re-write, and then create your own distorted interpretations of what you’ve cherry-picked and triangulated, and place them forward as fact. It’s called perfidy. Standard for you.

My own statement included and simply re-affirmed the RELEVANCE to this whole issue. That was the continued REPUDIATION, by Barack Obama, of ANY anti-Semitism within the US, or directed at the US from any other places. I made that clear, even though Obama had already made it clear, a few jillion times.

What I DID NOT feel was appropriate, was the question from Russert, about how Obama intended to ‘reassure’ Jewish Americans, and Israel, that he did not condone such anti-Semitism. I don’t appreciate the need for a US presidential candidate to ‘reassure’ Israel of anything.  I DID make it clear that American Jews, (as in US CITIZEN VOTERS/TAX PAYERS who happen to be Jewish) should of course KNOW, from Obama or any other candidate, that he will not condone any type of anti-Semitism in any form or fashion.

He should ALSO make it clear, that he will not allow, (as President) ANY form of racism, practiced by, or directed against, ANY US citizen, on his watch. Now, he has done that in other conversations, and speeches, and in various policy and position papers, so I’m not making a big deal on him leaving that out. He was not questioned about any of these other forms of racial or religious or political discrimination, and so he answered the question diplomatically enough.

My minor complaint was that he included in his answer, the fact that the US has a ‘special relationship’ with Israel, and while that may be true, I’m not personally convinced that it is a GOOD thing…this ‘special relationship’ with Israel. Actually, if we wanted to look at it from one of your own distorted views, which suggests that any ‘associations’ with ‘known belligerents’ or ‘known racists’ or known whatever, should be repudiated, then maybe we shouldn’t be ‘bragging’ about, or otherwise acknowledging this ‘special relationship’ with the perpetrators of a 60-year old major ethnic cleansing operation.  THAT however is Israel, and it is for another conversation, maybe on International affairs.

As for the 2.4% of the Jewish AMERICAN population, who happen to be citizen-taxpayers, then yes, it was perfectly OK for Obama to ‘reassure’ them that he didn’t approve of ANY anti-Semitism, and that’s exactly what I already said.

What I am also saying, is that Israel and anti-Semitism aren’t the same word, and I don’t believe that Israel needs to approve of who Americans choose as their President, nor do I believe that any US presidential candidate needs to pander to the citizens of Israel. Candidates can and SHOULD denounce any form of racism or other discrimination by or against American citizens, but this isn’t about Israel.  Sorry. It’s not.

As a US citizen, I don’t expect the Israelis to consider me or my own nation in their political elections. I’m not sure why you or anyone else in the US thinks that we should include Israel in ours.

Maani,

This entire conversation is yet another example of the forest and the trees. I’m looking at the forest (this debate), and you’re looking at another tree, in this case a DISEASED tree, and picking at the bark/leaves/stems after they’ve already fallen off and into a pile of insignificant debris.

The diseased tree that you’ve chosen this is what you call the “Farrakhan issue”. It is to this, that I was initially responding, and admittedly, I did allow myself to be temporarily and marginally distracted by your typical red herring-triangulation/dog wagging.

What you wrote:

• “…on the Farrakhan issue, although he responded well…. to the initial question, he evaded the secondary - but important - issue of Rev. Wright’s unflagging support for Farrakhan, whom he considers a “hero.” Given that Rev. Wright is the minister with the most influence on Obama’s Christian faith, ..Obama’s sidestepping.. highly disingenuous: does he or ..not support Rev. Wright’s hero worship of Farrakhan, which.. include his NON-repudiation of Farrakhan’s anti-semitic views?  …. he has an obligation to repudiate (or at least chastise) Rev. Wright AS WELL AS Farrakhan.  He has not done so.”

Maani, the above is your typical perfidy and YOU are willfully disingenuous.

• MR. RUSSERT: “Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments…. On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: “Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.” Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?”

The above is the first mention of the issue (diseased tree), and more a series of baiting statements (Russert) rather than questions, though he does end it with one. No reference to Rev. Wright.

“DO YOU ACCEPT THE ‘SUPPORT’(?) OF LOUIS FARRAKHAN?”

The emphasis on the word ‘support’ is mine, because it’s more than a matter of semantics or linguistics here, since it is part of the actual question. Obama answers below and there is nothing in the answer that could be interpreted as sidestepping, despite the fact that it was a stupid and inappropriate question.

• SEN. OBAMA: “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

But, despite that very clear answer, Russert has to keep up the baiting..

• MR. RUSSERT: “Do you reject his support? “

Obama answers again; clearly, without sidestepping, and we’re still talking about Farrakhan’s ‘support’ here, which is a headline in the Chicago newspaper. No mention of Rev. Wright.

• SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I—you know, I—I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.”

But alas, Timmy still can’t let it go..

• MR. RUSSERT: “The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism “gutter religion.”

• OBAMA: ‘Tim, I think—I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That’s why I have consistently denounced it.This is not something new. This is something that—I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I’ve been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.”

Still nothing here to do with Wright Maani. Nothing to do with Obama’s Christian influence, or any other debris from your diseased tree.

YOU Maani, are FUNDAMENTALLY/WILLFULLY DISHONEST!

Interesting video here.

Maya Soetoro-Ng, Barack’s Half Sister

Reflects on growing up with him.

Mature and intelligent audiences should check it out.

http://blip.tv/file/332972

Maani, you know I’m anything but myopic when it comes to our given candidates. Let’s not bring this to insults again. This is an attempt to calm down the ridiculousness of just such comments, and how they distract from real issues.

Also, don’t think the comment I left was directed solely at you. You’ve been far more agreeable than many of the other Clinton supporters. There is no denying the threat many people have made of voting for John McCain if Barack gets the nomination. That is not progress, and shows either underlying motives or petty selfishness.

There is no opinion to the fact lib spouts ignorant statements about Barack implying he supports Farrakhan, questioning his patriotism and emphasizing his middle name. There is no question as to the extreme, narrow-minded bias and ignorance of such statements.

Aegrus:

“Maani, don’t be a fear monger, and don’t encourage lib’s ignorance. If you’re scared, it is only because you know your candidate has lost. It’s not something to get upset over.”

“Scared?” That my candidate might lose?  That is a pretty odd word to use here.  As for “lib’s ignorance,” that is your opinion.  Because while I agree she has said a few things that give me pause, she has also said things that are quite cogent, and with which I agree.

“Do not damn our country to another conservative Supreme Court Judge!”

I have no idea what you are saying here.  I support the Democratic party, and will support its candidate, whether that is Hillary or Obama.  And neiter one would put conservative judges on the SC.

“Don’t let your candidate’s campaign set the tone for your mannerisms. Be an individual, and be objective.”

“Objective?” This is coming from YOU?  One of Obama’s most outspoken and myopic fans?  Hysterical.

Peace.

Maani, don’t be a fear monger, and don’t encourage lib’s ignorance. If you’re scared, it is only because you know your candidate has lost. It’s not something to get upset over.

We all have been pouring our hearts into our words as of late, and I like how often the high road is taken. Occasionally, everyone can get frustrated by the staunch rivals from either camp, but we have to look forward. This is not a race about Hillary or Obama. This race is about America.

The Democratic candidate, whoever it will be, has to be elected for the sake of our country. We cannot afford another Republican victory. Even if John McCain is better than George Bush, it isn’t saying much to anyone’s character to be better than our current steward of the American Presidency. Do not damn our country to another conservative Supreme Court Judge!

Moreover, let’s get back to the issues. Not too long ago, things were more civil. It is important not to let these media non-issues and shock journalism dictate our behaviors. Don’t let your candidate’s campaign set the tone for your mannerisms. Be an individual, and be objective.

America needs every citizen this election.

Cyrena:

Your attempts to dodge or change the issue ("If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull---") might work on others, but not with me.

Who cares WHY Russert asked the question, or even if it was a fair or appropriate question?  He DID ask it, so Obama had an obligation to answer it FULLY. He was asked about BOTH people: Farrakhan and Wright.  He answered ONLY about Farrakhan.  You can scream all you want in as many paragraphs as you like, but this is the fact of what occurred: Obama evaded answering the entire question, which was dishonest on his part.  Period.

As for “Hillary’s pastor,” once again you show that it is YOU who cannot see the forest for the trees.  If Hillary HAD been asked about her pastor or his views on something related to a legitimate issue (as Obama was), I would have expected HER to answer the question fully as well.  And had she not, I would have been just as annoyed with her as I am with Obama.

“As a US citizen, I don’t really CARE what anybody in America thinks about Israel. Or, maybe I should say that it doesn’t belong in a debate between US politicians currently campaigning for office PRESIDENT.”

Hmm...Are you sure you don’t want to retract that before you look hopelessly foolish?  A discussion about Israel - and a candidates’ words, positions and feelings about Israel and anti-semitism - “doesn’t belong in a debate” for candidates for president of the United States?  I can’t tell if you are suggesting that their views on anti-semitism are IRRELEVANT to the discussion or are the ONLY relevant discussion.  In either case, I honestly don’t even know what to say to this, it is so incredibly bizarre.

You really need to get a grip on yourself.  More and more people are noticing how you cannot express yourself, your opinions, your responses, etc. without unnecessary rancor and name-calling, or control yourself enough to make your points cogently and succinctly.  You obviously have smarts.  But as Spock tells Bones McCoy, “Doctor, you must learn to govern your passions; they WILL be your undoing.”

Peace.

Lib:

“Mid City Mike, Cyrena, Aegrus you are all so full of hatred its a little frightening.”

No, it is ALOT frightening…

Peace.

An article posted Feb. 28 explores Obama’s candidacy and some elements and dynamics of the state of Ohio:

“Obama faces Ohio hearts and minds” (AmericanChronicle.com) ...

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53747

What were you saying about Osama Hussein Obama, that you didn’t care whether Obama was christian or what ever ????  Then you come back and say what would Hillary’s pastor think, who is Hillary’s pastor.
You are so fast with the stupids when in fact you show yourself to be STUPID.

Mid City Mike, Cyrena, Aegrus you are all so full of hatred its a little frightening.

Miller, This was why Clinton complained about getting the questions first, Obama uses her answers
to act like he knows what he’s talking about.  You are right Obama didn’t have a clue, but this is not the first thing he hasn’t had a clue about.
Yesterday in a suburb of Dallas he was ask if he would come thru with all his promises and he backed down and more or less said he would try !! He is definitely getting ready for the repubs to pounce on his inexperience.
Thank you for your service.

Maani,

It’s like I’ve said before, you’re an asshole. OBVIOUSLY, I pointed YOU to the written transcript in the first sentence of my post. It wasn’t my intention to reprint the entire thing, since anybody who could read, would reference it.

The POINT, was to make it clear that the REASON the question was posed to begin with, was in light of the UNSOLICITED ENDORSEMENT (for Obama) that Farrakhan has recently publicized. So, the rest of the paragraph, which I re-read myself before my own post, was irrelevant to the nefarious connection that you are trying to make.  It is typical for you to make whatever desperate connections you can possibly make, to either smear Obama, no matter how INDIRECT the connection, or to whine about something else, that has no connection.

So, shame on you, (as usual) and shame on Russert as well, for even asking a question that involved the political attitudes of Jewish AMERICANS respective to ISRAEL, which doesn’t happen to be a US state, no matter how much you or others might want it to be. As a US citizen, I don’t really CARE what anybody in America thinks about Israel. Or, maybe I should say that it doesn’t belong in a debate between US politicians currently campaigning for office PRESIDENT.

The ONLY thing that Americans, (Jewish or otherwise) need to know, is that Obama does NOT support or in any way/shape/form, or otherwise approve of any anti-Semitism in these United States of America. To that end, Obama directly responded to that issue, as well as the displays of anti-Semitism by Louis Farrakhan, on MULTIPLE occasions in the past. And yes, he did it yet AGAIN, in this debate. How many times does he have to say that he doesn’t approve or condone anti-Semitism from anybody in this country, or against anybody in this country?

And, if Israel has to be reassured of that, on behalf of Jewish Americans, and if Jewish Americans have to be reassured of that, on behalf of Israel, something is still very deeply wrong with our priorities here.

I mean, it could only follow that we should then check in with these candidates to see how they should reassure Iranian/Persian Americans, Asian Americans, Egyptian/Lebanese/Palestinian/Syrian/Iraqi/Kuwaiti Arab Americans, not to mention the African-Americans from every nation of THAT huge Continent that Obama’s positions are consistent with issues regarding (name the country) and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness.

So yeah, thanks for re-focusing my attention on this. It was a stupid question from Russert to begin with.

Again, for the record, a whole bunch of Americans DON’T know who Louis Farrakhan is, INCLUDING those among the 13% African-American population. They also don’t know who Rev. Wright is, and more importantly, they don’t CARE!

Take me for instance…I don’t really CARE that Barack Obama is Christian or NOT Christian. Considering that, none of what you’ve posted matters a whit, to a huge portion of the American public. We don’t care what Rev. Right/Wrong thinks about Louis Farrakhan, or anybody else.  If Barack Obama didn’t HAVE a pastor or a “church” or a religion, it would be PERFECTLY FINE WITH US!!

Now, what does Hillary’s pastor think about this? Who IS Hillary’s pastor anyway? How does Hillary’s pastor feel about the US relationship to Israel? What about the rest of the world? And how does Hillary feel about the Bush I endorsement of John McCain? I mean, they’re really good buddies…Hillary and John.

And here’s John McCain, who has accepted the endorsement of the parent of a mass murderer, when in fact they both have the power to take the mass murder off the streets, (and out of the White House) and lock him up for the rest of his natural life.

Shouldn’t Hillary be required to denounce and repudiate both McCain and Bush 1, so that we ALL know that she doesn’t approve?

By YOUR logic, she should.

But, you’re stupid.

Cyrena:

“There is ONE mention of Rev. Wright in this debate. It is this...RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you gotfrom a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”

As usual, you’re research is sloppy or nonexistent.  Here is Russert’s COMPLETE question:

RUSSERT: “The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.” He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, “your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.” What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?”

Get that? “...whether it’s Farrakhan’s support OR THE ACTIVITIES OF REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT, your pastor.” (Emphasis mine.)

Russert was asking about BOTH.  Obama ONLY responded re Farrakhan and COMPLETELY sidestepped the issue of Rev. Wright, the pastor of the church of which he is a member - a pastor of whom he has spoken glowingly a number of times, and whom he himself has stated was and is an important influence on him and his faith.

Let me put this another way.  If I were a member of a church whose pastor felt that Farrakhan “epitomized greatness,” I would not remain a member of that church (if I had ever joined it to begin with).  Why would I entrust ANY PART of my spiritual life to someone who does not himself repudiate the incredible offensive things that Farrakhan has said?

“Now, explain to us, how and why you can make a claim, that Wright is THE MINISTER WITH THE MOST INFLUENCE ON OBAMA’S CHRISTIAN FAITH, (since there’s no way you CAN make that claim) and then tell us exactly what the hell that has to do with ANYTHING about Obama being the President?”

I can make that claim because he is the minister of the church of which Obama is a member, the church at which Obama spends the most time, the church in which Obama has entrusted a major part of his spiritual life - by his own admission, Cyrena, NOT by my personal claim.

As for what it has to do with being president, the issue speaks directly to Obama’s character.

What happened to Obama’s vaunted “principle?”

Peace.

JPS; I just hope that giant sucking sound isn’t the dems going down the toilet from infighting.  They need to get on with it......

^ kind words.  I just hope the dems don’t blow it; or as some wag said, “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”.

Attn Trolling Maani

The ENTIRE transcript is available and attached to this article. Therefore, no one is required to depend on their memories of what they ‘watched’ since we can very quickly and efficiently reference the recorded transcript.

So, it doesn’t take long at all, (less than 30 seconds) to recognize your standard troll behavior on this blog. Take for instance, this comment….

• “Given that Rev. Wright is the minister with the most influence on Obama’s Christian faith”,….blah, blah, blah…”I find Obama’s sidestepping of this to be highly disingenuous: does he or does he not support Rev. Wright’s hero worship of Farrakhan, which would include his NON-repudiation of Farrakhan’s anti-semitic views?  If he does not, he has an obligation to repudiate (or at least chastise) Rev. Wright AS WELL AS Farrakhan.  He has not done so.

There is ONE mention of Rev. Wright in this debate. It is this…

• RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you gotfrom a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church.He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”

Read this again Maani, if in fact you can read. Go directly to the ‘read more’ link, in case you don’t want to take my word for it. Now, explain to us, how and why you can make a claim, that Wright is THE MINISTER WITH THE MOST INFLUENCE ON OBAMA’S CHRISTIAN FAITH, (since there’s no way you CAN make that claim) and then tell us exactly what the hell that has to do with ANYTHING about Obama being the President?  Suppose Maani, that a bunch of American voters don’t CARE about Obama’s Christian or any other kind of faith, and never heard of Rev. Wright, and don’t care about him either? What do you think of that Maani?

We know from the debate, (and the transcript) that the question was regarding the comments made by Louis Farrakhan, which most certainly CAN be interpreted as being ‘anti-Semitic’. And, in the same breath, Obama has REAFFIRMED here, (because he’s said the same a million times before) that he denounces those comments, and ANY OTHER COMMENTS that Louis Farrakhan has made that can be interpreted as anti-Semitic.

So, why are you trying to drag Wright into it, other than the fact that you’re a hate mongering troll, who will do anything it takes, to stir up animosity and hate? There is absolutely no mention of Rev. Wright here, other than the fact that the title of Obama’s most recent book, “The Audacity of Hope” came from a single sermon delivered by Wright.

So Maani, this is not by any means disingenuous on the part of Obama, since he more than clearly addressed the question put to him. What this actually is – is the standard shit starting and perfidy from YOU. YOU are describing Rev. Wright as a hero worshiper of Farrakhan, when in fact Wright has nothing to do with any of this.

I would add that IN MY OPINION, this was the only ‘error’ that Obama made in this debate, because once confronted with the connection, which had nothing to do with Wright, but rather the unsolicited endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, Obama should have made it a point to separate his disapproval of anti-Semitic comments (by Farrakhan) from the greater Israel question.

He didn’t need to go on and on about Israel being an ally, and all the rest. The comments that Farrakhan has made have been anti-Semitic in nature, and are offensive to Jewish AMERICANS, and they disrespect the bond between the Jewish and African-American communities that date well back to the 60’s. Obama made that point, and reaffirmed his repudiation of anything that Louis Farrakhan has said that may have contributed to the rupture of that former relationship.

That has NOTHING to do with Israel, so Obama didn’t even need to say anything about Israel. The issue was Farrakhan and his unsolicited endorsement of Obama.

And, that’s all it was.

Oh my gosh Maani it must be lonely in your world!

Nobody likes to hang around with somebody who absolutely knows everything there is to know about absolutely everything!

I stand by what I said. Because even YOU do not know everything there is to know about everything in the thousands and thousands of versions of so-called Christianity!

Neither do I. But I know what I know and there is no way YOU can KNOW what I know, based on the versions of Christianity I have been exposed too! There are so many. Just like people ... so many. Each with their own views. Each with their own beliefs. And each trying hard to understand the whole, rather than petty focusing on semantics.

And here’s a unique view ... each trying to get along with one another ... that peace thing you always mention.

The definitions of the two words are pretty clear. Apparently you have never watched a “Sermon” being delivered from the floor(s) of Congress. But, that is your loss.

And getting “jarred” over the use of the words “Sermon” and “Salvation” indicates you are desperately searching for something else to nit-pick! Whatever will you do with that huge pile of hair once this is all over and done ... stuff a pillow?

No, I suspect more than likely you’ll change your tag handle, and volunteer in some repub “stop Obama” campaign. Now that you and so many so-called Hillary supporters like you, have successfully trashed her campaign with your endless negativity!

Bill:

Louise is not entirely correct.  First, one does not get “ordained” by or into a church, but rather “confirmed.” [N.B. One gets ordained either by attending a seminary or Bible college, or after long-term, focused study being mentored with one or more pastors or ministers).  And neither baptism nor confirmation confers ministerial powers to a member of an established, mainstream church such as the one to which Obama belongs (Trinity).

However, even “lay” (unordained) members of a church may deliver a “sermon” if (i) the church recognizes such activity (most do) and (ii) a lay person is requested to do so by the pastor or minister.  It may be that Ebeneezer Baptist permits lay members or visiting lay people to deliver “sermons.”

Still, I, too, found his use of that word odd - and a little jarring - given that he is well aware of the way that many people are talking about his campaign, and the “religious” words and images it is associated with.  And it was doubly jarring coming fast on the heels of a speech I heard him give in (I think) Texas in which he himself juxtaposed the word “salvation” while talking about his candidacy or campaign (though I don’t remember the exact quote).

Peace.

Before you start thinking about Hillary for President, just hold these thoughts in your mind.
1. Crooked Cattle Futures Trades.

2. The murder of Vince Foster and the looting of his office.

3. Jorge Cabreras

4. Whitewater

5. Flowerwood

6. Castle Grande

7. Iran-Contra/Mena

8. The looting of Social Security to create a phony budget surplus.

9. Watch this space.

Hillary proclaimed herself the “Co-President” when Bill was chasing skirts in the Oval Office. Let us hold her to that.

Some Christian Churches believe baptism and ordination as a member of that church qualifies as a leader in the service of God. They do not call themselves the “clergy” in the sense that they are ordained or hold degrees that say they can be, but in the sense that having been converted, or re-born, or simply baptized ... their witness or testimony gives them the legitimate right to “sermonize.”

However, a sermon does not necessarily have to be delivered in a Church. Nor does it necessarily have to be related to the specific functions of that Church. If you watch c-span with any degree of regularity you occasionally hear a congress person deliver a Sermon.

Although not near as often as they should!!!

Being a Prophet is not a requirement qualifying one to deliver a Sermon.

Didn’t your folks ever give you one when you were growing up? I know I got a few!

The term Clergy is usually found more commonly in the ancient Christian Churches, or their direct spin-offs, where active preaching and the performance of religious ordinances is restricted to a chosen few.

Sermon:
:A religious discourse delivered as part of a church service: Extended lecture on behavior or morals:

Clergy:
:The body of men set apart, by due ordination, to the service of God, in the Christian church, in distinction from the laity; in England, usually restricted to the ministers of the Established Church.

The problem, of course, would be that the Democrats would have such a hard time choosing between Porky Pig and Donald Duck that they’d get into a giant fight about it and end up losing to Wily E. Coyote.

Oops, i noticed you prefaced that statement with “if Americans have a brain in their collective heads...”.  I’ll rest my case.

Or maybe we deserve Porky Pig.  Hunter S. Thompson liked to quip, “We’re a nation of pigs and we’ll get what we deserve.”

I’m not at all sure that all of us watched the same debate.

Both candidates said things (and did NOT say things) that bothered me.  RE Hillary, her answer re releasing her tax return was disingenuous, her jab about the “pillow” was unnecessary (and silly), and her overemphasis on semantics ("rejecting") was also unnecessary.

However, her annoyance at “always getting the first question” was understandable: she HAS gotten the first question (which is almost always an “attack” question) 6 out of the past 10 times, and all three times that she debated Obama one-on-one.  As well, while some pundits suggest that it is a “good” thing to answer questions first (because it allows that candidate to “set the tone” for the discussion), the reality is that people usually remember the LAST thing said (i.e., the response) and not the first (which is why Hillary tends to rebut).

As well, Obama seems to have more in common with Reagan than (arguably) being a “transformative” candidate: he has also become the Teflon candidate.

For example, on the Farrakhan issue, although he responded well and strongly to the initial question, he evaded the secondary - but important - issue of Rev. Wright’s unflagging support for Farrakhan, whom he considers a “hero.” Given that Rev. Wright is the minister with the most influence on Obama’s Christian faith, I find Obama’s sidestepping of this to be highly disingenuous: does he or does he not support Rev. Wright’s hero worship of Farrakhan, which would include his NON-repudiation of Farrakhan’s anti-semitic views?  If he does not, he has an obligation to repudiate (or at least chastise) Rev. Wright AS WELL AS Farrakhan.  He has not done so.

As well, Obama sidestepped the Iraq war funding issue.  Yes, his comment about driving the bus in the ditch was a nice sound bite.  But it is NOT irrelevant what occurred after that, nor is Hillary’s comment about them voting identically for funding the war irrelevant.  Because once the bus is in the ditch, one either helps to get the bus OUT of the ditch, or they do not.  Obama’s votes for funding the war were a continued enabling of keeping the bus in the ditch, irrespective of whether he helped to get it there.

Obama also continously sidesteps the foreign policy expertise question by harping on the same two things: his opposition to the Iraq war, and his stance on Pakistan (and occasionally, his stance on Iran).  But there are more than two countries out there, and interconnections are very complex. Hillary has shown her mastery of these complexities time and again, and did so during the debate when she talked about Kosovo and Russia.  Indeed, when Russert asked the question about Russia, he looked to either of them for an answer (i.e., it was an open question).  Neither “jumped” at it at first, but I noticed that Obama turned his head slightly toward the left (away from Russert) allowing Hillary to field it - and then came back and basically parroted everything Hillary said.  In other words, he clearly did not have an answer, and wanted to hear her answer first so he had something to repeat and/or build on.  And he has done this quite a few times re foreign affairs during the debates.

Ultimately, Obama’s deflection of things via a combination of charm and “political skills” may work in his favor, but it is fundamentally dishonest.  And while Hillary may be guilty of the same on occasion, this does not absolve Obama of HIS lack of integrity in this regard.

Peace.

People have been saying “It’s the economy, stupid” for a real long time, but the candidates wanted to keep that issue in the freezer until Ohio for political reasons.

Don’t count out Iraq yet because it is still a heated issue, but the economy is really where Democratic candidates can capitalize. Since McCain doesn’t know anything about economics and has decided to fall in line with Bush-Economy principals, his candidacy is pretty much sealed with doom. This is precisely what most of the wacko neo-cons want, though.

Well, whomever said, “It’s the economy stupid” could not have been more correct.  It appears that the US economy is tanking while inflation is taking hold, namely “Stagflation” a economic situation less than desirable.  Poor Bernake (Greenspan got out just in time) is at the edge of the abyss.  If he raises the prime rate to retard inflation he’ll deepen the recession on the other hand if he lowers the prime rate to spur the economy, he’ll worsen inflation.  What to do??  Being a hack for Bush, he’ll be more concerned with business and want to promote growth and thus lower the prime interest rate and then we’ll see real inflation.  Generally speaking inflation is the 600 lb gorilla----it’s always around.  As the value of money declines prices go up, but so do salaries so most working people stay pretty much even through an inflationary cycle except those on the lower end of a fixed income----they’re toast!!!

Thanks for the belly laugh…
The more I read your comments,
the more I appreciate
your unique perspective..
I merely Hope
that there wil be
an election…

Who gives a flying f*** what that hack Mark Halperin thinks.

This is the moron who created a list of strategies for McCain to beat Senator Obama:

-"Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama.”

-"Emphasize Barack Hussein Obama’s unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism.”

And Time actually publishes this steaming pile of dung.

“… two people who claim to like each other and largely agree on everything else.”

***

Except as mentioned, The War In Iraq.

No doubt both are sincere when they say they want to change the direction of the war. The BIG difference we need to focus on is:

One was a Bush cheerleader for war. And one said he didn’t think it was a good idea.

And while there are those who really believe that shouldn’t be an issue, it is. The way it should be viewed is:

Believing bullshit because it comes wrapped in corporate colors, versus speaking your mind, because you believe in what your mind is telling you.

In other words, some people can think ahead better than others.

***

“I have to say, Brian, I think she is—she would be worthy as a nominee. Now, I think I’d be better. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be running. But there’s no doubt that Senator Clinton is qualified and capable and would be a much better president than John McCain, who I respect and I honor his service to this country, but essentially has tethered himself to the failed policies of George Bush over the last seven years.”

***

And that in a nutshell explains Obamas successes.

He appears to be unflappable. And he seems to prefer not to bring himself to say an unkind thing about someone else, even when given the opportunity.

I think what we see in Obama is someone who has learned from the experience of being “different” that focusing on peoples “sameness” brings better results. We are after all, all people. And if we’re normal, we all want a better future and an end to failed policies.

I really want to strangle Hillary’s campaign advisers for continually enabling her to act so belligerent as of late. It’s really ridiculous to try and ruffle Obama’s feathers at this point. Time and time again he shows the best equanimity and self-control. It’s a tactic which yields no results.

Her campaign is so deep in the water now, there isn’t any question to the distance she’ll go after March 4th. Why can’t Hillary have a better campaign? Is Mark Penn so much of a misogynist he cannot possibly let Hillary be herself?

I’m pretty impressed how Obama has grown as a candidate through this campaign. He doesn’t dodge tough questions. He has a great sense of humor about attacks and smears. This is a confident, powerful and capable man. If the media has treated him better than Hillary, it is only because Hillary has run a poor campaign with the addition to a long history of media scrutiny. There is just less to get upset with Obama about.

^ after the last 7 years, if Americans have a brain in their collective heads, the dems should be able to run Porky Pig and win by a landslide.  Give me a break!

I am so sick of the Clintons and their sense of entitlement. Hillary behaves like a petulant child. Obama demonstrates his maturity and is far more presidential in demeanor by comparison. That is what these debates underscore.

Imagine how smug Hillary would be if she won the last 11 contests. Obama would’ve already have been out of the picture.

Hope for a change from the Clintons, who don’t seem to understand that it is not their automatic birthright, is enough for me.