Agreed about the racism that the Clinton campaign is exhibiting and exploiting. There are a lot of people who seem to think that racism in the United States is all but dead, but the widespread (though admittedly subtle and of a less violent and overt nature than its pre-Civil Rights Movement incarnation) racism that prevails today can be seen in such blanket assumptions that Obama is only where he is today because of his skin color or that blacks only vote for Obama because he is black too. And I think that things like that are what makes it difficult for many minorities to be "proud" of their country.

Good points regarding experience as well -- I just wish the Obama campaign would do more to highlight his experience rather than allowing Hillary to claim that she has so much more.

Dar: Yeah, Obama's going to have to deal with a lot if/when he wins the nomination. The Muslim charge is fairly easily dispensed with -- he's a Christian and has attended the same church for 20 years -- though I think that response may be even more problematic considering the heavily racialized views of his religious affiliations. I'm worried that associations with guys like Rev. Jeremiah Wright could cause Obama to lose the election.

I do wish he'd respond more honestly and fully to the Muslim charge, though. He may not be a Muslim, but he does have Muslim roots, spent some years in a predominately Muslim country, and apparently studied Islam in school. Does that make him any less qualified to lead the country? In order to resolve the situation in the Middle East, we're going to have to be able to work with Muslim countries and Muslim leaders -- and it is entirely possible that an elected leader who has some understanding of Islam will be better able to do that than a leader who wins because the people think that Islam is the Devil.

Sadly, if he does, he'll be subjected to the worst smear cmapaign that the GOP and conservarive propoganda machine can muster. Those trolls over at Freerepublic.com will have a field day, especially with him supposedly being a secret Muslm (and thus eevilll!).

The Clinton camp has been blantantly racist - Ed Rendell said on Face the Nation something to the effect that "America isn't ready for a black president."
In other words, don't vote for Obama in he primaries because he's black and therefore can't win. I thought that this comment was akin to whem Malcolm X's teacher told him not to try to go to law school and get ready for a manual labor job because he was black. Except that Malcolm X's teacher was well meaning. This case is absurd - there are far far more people in America who won't vote for Obama because he is a DEMOCRAT than because he is black. And what, we're ready for a woman president, but not a black president, yet, hillary is discriminated against because she's a woman? Absurd. Plus Bill saying Obama only wins because black people vote for him? there is definitely more of a solidarity from women - they'll admit as much - towards Hillary. Plus, Black women are actually women, not genderless things. They have the same advantage to gain from a woman president as a black president, and to keep going down this road, how can we know black men don't vote for Obama because he's a man rather than because he's black, so is the country ready for a woman president? Nonesense arguments.

He's actually had 18 years in public service, so the inexperienced charge is absurd. What is compelling is that he has come from relatevely humble beginnings, and skyrocked, after two terms in the Senate, to an almost presidential candidate. He is the best example of American democracy on the ticket. Hillary is entrenched - any country in the world would have the wife of an ex ruler on the ticket, likewise with mccain - throughout history, military leaders who have been at the top of the government for dozens of years have gone on to lead those nations. But Obama has a history of fairly untainted public service.

That is the point of America - if Hillary is experienced, then by extension, doesn't any Prince have more of a claim to rule than any American president has ever had, since a Prince would have been surrounded by diplomacy and executive leadership since birth? I like the idea than any American can run for president and succeed, not just a military victor or the relative of a former ruler.

It's lucky for her McCain is the Republican leader, because I think the only experience that really counts is executive experience. Legislators can always point to their votes without being accountable for the results. Nobody can really say Hillary brought about the war. Obviously, Obama didn't stop the war from happening. But they can both point to their record. At least Romney, Guiliani and Huckabee were accountable for the things that they voted for or brought about, good or bad. That illustrates leadership. And they can be held accountable for whatever compromises they chose or didn't to make things happen. What would Hillary, McCain or Obama have done if they couldn't hide behind 99 other Senators' votes? We don't really know. Not to support those other candidates, but I think executive leadership is much more important than committee based experience any day.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.....index.html

Good then.

I mean, even the inexperience charge can easily be countered -- first by highlighting the experience that he does have (which is substantial and arguably more extensive than Hillary's, though not McCain's) and then by pointing out that a number of important and influential leaders in our nation's history were similarly "inexperienced." Rhetoric would require that he list them by name and elaborate upon the notable accomplishments that they were able to author despite their so-called "inexperience." And then, should Obama be pressed with the issue further, he could eloquently paint experience as a negative given that bringing about real change will require a comparatively fresh outlook. Yet he and his campaign haven't been nearly as vocal as they could be regarding this charge.

As far as I'm concerned, Clinton is no longer effective at conquering and is now primarily succeeding at dividing (and insulting). I almost certainly will not be at the polls in November if she wins the nomination -- unless, of course, I decide to turn out for Nader.

Brian: That kind of thing is definitely shady, but it's technically allowed (at least in states that allow registered Republicans and independents to vote in the Democratic primary) -- so I view it as an unfortunate but legitimate strategic move. To cut down on it, though, I would prefer it if registered Republicans could only vote in Republican primaries and registered Democrats could only vote in Democratic primaries -- with independents able to vote in either but not both -- across the board.

And I've heard about the Madballs (or Madcars, since they feature Madballs-inspired vehicles) greeting cards, but I completely forgot to look for them the last time I was in Target. But yes, if I remember to grab them next time, they could definitely be potential review fodder.

thanks for sharing.. - i voted for obama here in ohio.. - i found it odd, days later, that he lost to hillary by about 40,000 votes.. yet beat mccain by 20,000.. especially considering that ohio is generally a "red" state.. - then i found out that a lot of conservative pundits were telling people to "jump the line" and vote for hillary, as to sabotage obama's chance at winning an important state as he's considered a more legit threat.. - any thoughts on these types of practices?

and, in more important news, recentley at Target i saw madballs greetings cards.. - if you love those gross balls, and you've done greeting card articles in the past, so please tell me you're going to cover this monumental occasion? =)