Here's the first site I came across.

Treats For Troops.

http://www.treatsfortroops.com/

There are other links at this site regarding gifts we can send them. Looks like this site has a lot of really good ideas, and is specific about what troops want.

Here's another link, even more specific and with more programs to remind troops we are thinking about them.

This site also has a email setup so that we can send letters to our troops and they can write back. That doesn't cost a thing, and could mean a lot to a lonely soldier.
They also have a "sponsor a soldier" program. A lot of great ideas here.

I hope this makes up for my having posted politics during this sacred holiday. Again, my apologies.

I Pray for Peace and the safe return of our troops.

http://www.treatsfortroops.com/gallaghers_army.php

On Friday, 5-23-'08, Keith Olberman suffered a sad mental meltdown on the air. For months now, Olberman has used his show as a attack machine directed at Hillary Clinton, something I find very offensive. Now Mr. Olberman's saying her campaign needs to "End it's Misery?" Why? Because Sen. Clinton repeatedly proves she is the more electable Democratic candidate, and this makes the great and all wise Keith Olberman angry?
I think that it's Olberman's show that needs to "End it's Misery" and go off the air.
In fact, I wrote to MSNBC, since my letters to Olberman himself were met with with brilliant remarks like "sc**w you." For someone who bleats his views so freely, the "brave" Mr. Olberman doesn't post his email address on the MSNBC site. So, I chose this time to write to those who keep him on the air. You can also contact his network at. . letters@msnbc.com

It's been increasingly clear that Olberman has lost all perspective, all touch with reality. But his most recent "special comment," insisting that Hillary Clinton's mentioning the fact that Robert Kennedy was killed at the end of the campaign was some sort of "secret signal" to all Hillary's "brainwashed" supporters to go shoot her opponent, was the final proof that Keith is truly delusional.
Does Olberman think it's a secret that RFK died in June? Uh, we knew, Keith. Some of us even remember seeing the awful event on TV, and praying for his survival. We remember our sorrow as well when he died. We are not as stupid, or forgetful, as you assume.
To even suggest that Hillary was somehow urging anyone to kill anyone is what is stupid. Add to this the fact that many of RFK's grown children are supporters of Hillary Clinton. For example . . .

It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.
Robert Kennedy Jr.

Yet not only did Olberman "take offense," he raved like a mad man. Does he honestly believe this idiocy, or is he so determined to destroy Hillary that he'll say anything?
And what's with this royal "we" business? During his "special comment," he kept saying "We have forgiven" Hillary. Who is we, exactly?

Someone really ought to explain to Olberman that he is not Queen Victoria, and get him the help he so desperately needs. I hope that other will email MSNBC and let them know that Olberman's no longer rational enough to be on their network. He needs medication, not more air time.

Again the email is
letters@msnbc.com

Well, it's decided. The media had declared Obama will is the chosen one. Is the primary over, has the party spoken?
No, because the media says so. They have been trying to control this campaign from the beginning, and there is no doubt as to who they have wanted as the Democrat's nominee. Even Keith Olberman said, at the beginning of this camapign, that he thought Hillary Clinton was being "SAVAGED" by the media. Now, apparently because he prefers Obama, or maybe he wants to keep his job, he bashes her constantly?
How's this for irony. Olberman got into trouble back when the "Liberal Media," includuding MSNBC, was firing people like Phil Donahue for being "too anti-war."
When Olberman's job was on the line, Sen. Hillary Clinton and her family spoke up on his behalf and helped keep him from losing his show. Olberman himself has admitted that Hillary did this for him.
So, is Olberman doing whatever his bosses say to keep his job? Has Mr. OLberman no concept of loyalaty?! What a snake either way.

Dan Abrams took the complaints of anti-Hillary bias in the mnedia, that began very early in this campaign, seriously enough to actually do a study on this. The study found that thre were roughly TWICE AS MANY ANTI-HILLARY COMMENTS on the news media. A study by "Media Matters" showed that many of the attacks against Hillary were very sexist in nature.
But no one made a big deal about these studies. Why not? Are gender issues just plain not worthy of discussion? If it had been Obama in a racist manner, would such a study have been disregarded?

Yet proof that the "News" media has spent this entire camapign bashing Hillary, attacking the first viable woman presidential candidate, often in profoundly misogynistic comments, has gone unmentioned. Again, Why?
From the other end of the political spectrum, Lou Dobbs has said that, in his entire time working in the media, he has never before seen such blatant and unfair bais against any candidate, until Hillary Clinton dared to run for president. Again, Why is that?
It's time the media resumes it's job, REPORTING THE NEWS, not taking sides in a campaign and even declaring the "winner" weeks before the end of the primary. That's the job of the American people.

Keep in mind this is the same so called "Liberal Media," who blocked out Ted Koppel's "Nightline" in six states, for reading the names of fallen troops in Iraq. Who blocked out the showing of "Saving Private Ryan" in on third of the nation, so as not to dampen enthusiam for the war. So what is the reason for this "Liberal Media" bias against Hillary Clinton, a "News" media that is owned mostly by a handful of right wing extremeists?
Could it be these right wingers know Hillary is by far the stronger candidate against McCain? Naw, we all know the righties never would try to rig elections.

Considering all the gloating Republicans have done re; rigging the Democrat's primaries, which for some reason they are allowed to vote in, I think it's likely Republicans not only tried to change the outcome, but could have even been the deciding factor in the Indiana Democrat primary.

Only they didn't follow Rush Limbaugh's orders and vote for Hillary, despite claims that she would be easier to defeat in the general elections. I believe the Republicans voted as a block for Obama. Keep in mind that Karl Rove is running McCain's campaign.

If Hillary has proven anything in this contest, it's that she is a very strong candidate. Even Obama has said so. Obama was the weaker candidate and Republicans took this oppurtunity to try to knock Hillary out of the race for good.
Especially since Jeremiah Wright's been preening before TV cameras, and will certainly be back for more attention soon. Seems to me that since Obama hasn't been able to "close the deal," and his campaign has been damaged, especially among Indiana type demograpics, some sharp Republicans may have decided to vote as a block for Obama to try to finally get Hillary out of the race.

This would certainly explain why the polls for Hillary were so off.
Example;
"In SurveyUSA's last Indiana poll before today's primary decides the state's 72 pledged delegates, Clinton leads Obama by 12 points . . . ."

Meanwhile, exit polls reported that one in ten people who voted for a Democrat in the Indiana Primary were Republicans.

Hillary won Indiana by two points. Exactly ten points short of what the Indiana polls read, and the same percentage of Republicans who voted Demo in Indiana.

Something is very wrong with this picture. Hillary had the momentum for some time now, had the lead in the polls, and the GOP has been bragging about rigging our primaries. It seems pretty clear to me what's up. Question is now, what do we do about it?

Since Tom Hanks sited the history of African American men as his reason for supporting Sen. Obama, I thought it might be a good time to look at the history of women, black and white, in US history as a reason for women to consider supporting Sen. Clinton.

A possible reason for Hillary Clinton's support among older women, and men for that matter, may well be pride in the fact that she is the first viable woman candidate in US history, the first woman to have won even one primary in a presidential candidate. Men have been a part of that battle as well as women.

African Americans openly take pride in Obama's being such a viable black male presidential candidate, yet it's somehow not OK for women to feel the same sort of pride in a woman political trail blazer. Why not?

>>> Consider where we've come from.
In the begining of the 1900's, A WOMAN WAS NOT CONSIDERED A PERSON under our laws.

>>> The "Rule of Thumb" refers to actual law that allowed husbands to beat their wives with sticks, so long as the sticks were no thicker than the judge's thumb.

>>> The first women's rights convention took place in NY in 1848. The declaration that emerged was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it claimed that "all men and women are created equal." It included resolutions for equitable laws, equal educational and job opportunities, and the right to vote. Votes for women was considered so radical a concept at the time, it barely passed the vote held among the women at the meeting.

>>> With the Union victory in the Civil War, women abolitionists hoped their hard work would result in voting rights for women as well as for blacks. But the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, granted citizenship and suffrage to blacks but not to women. Including, of course, black women.

>>> During the early history of the United States, until the latter part of the 1900s, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his material possessions. The wife's possessions were also the sole property of the husband to do with as he saw fit, with no legal protections for wives and children. Married women had no right to any money they earned or any property they'd owned before the marriage.

>>> Mothers were legally defenseless to object to any decisions made by their husbands regarding their children, including placing children in work houses to earn money for his benefit.

>>> Husbands automaticallly got custody if there was a divorce, though often children were abandoned along with wives by husbands.

>>> If a man died without writing a will, his wife was not able to inherit anything, including any of the money she may have earned herself, or the land she had owned before her marriage.

>>> The British North America Act of 1867 said only "qualified persons" could be appointed to the Senate, thus barring the first woman to run for the Senate on the grounds that A WOMaN WAS NOT A PERSON UNDER FEDERAL LAW! Not even a percentage of a person.

Things got better fast. Not.

>>> In 1927, the Supreme Court of Canada answered the following question : Are women persons? After five long weeks of debaits and arguments, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD PERSON DID NOT INCLUDE WOMEN.

>>> The amendment for women's right to vote to be part of the Federal Constitution was presented to every Congress since 1878, repeatedly failed to pass until 1919.

>>> In 1873, Congress passed the Comstock Act outlawing the dissemination of birth control devices or information through the mail. Most states followed suit by passing their own laws outlawing the advertising, sale, and distribution, of all contraception. Women and children died and suffered because of these idiotic laws, but contraception was considered "obscene."

Margaret Sanger, a strong advocate of birth control, opened the country's first birth control clinic in New York City in 1916 and was prosecuted for violating New York's version of the Comstock Act. She served a 30-day sentence in a workhouse.

By the 1950s and 1960s, most states had legalized birth control, ( What Was The Rush? ) but many state laws still prohibited the dissemination of information about contraception, and some states still prohibited the possession of contraception.

>>> A 1965 landmark Supreme Court decision began to further erode these laws sanctioning birth control.

So, This isn't all from the "distant past" by any means.

>>> In the 1960's retail stores commonly wouldn't issue independent credit cards to married women.
>>> Divorced or single women struggled just to obtain independent credit to purchase a house or a car. This, and the lack of job oppurtunities, kept many women trapped in unhappy or even violent marriages.

>>> Sex discrimination in the definition of crimes existed in some areas of the United States. A woman who shot and killed her husband would be accused of homicide, but the shooting of a wife by her husband could be termed a "passion shooting."


Now some good news;

>>> The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed and signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.

Through the Office of Violence Against Women at the U.S. Justice Department, and the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--VAWA has combated domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault nationwide.
Thank You President Clinton.
>>> The Violence Against Women Act's programs range from policies to encourage the prosecution of abusers, to victim's services to prevention programs. VAWA helped forge new alliances between police officers, courts, and victim advocates.

VAWA was heralded the bill as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades."

So, some reasons why people should consider women's history of oppression and advances before voting. Hey, If it's OK for Tom Hanks, it's OK for us too.

Which of our two candidates have the best chance of winning the general election? This is a "small aside" that many Democrats seem to have forgotten about.

Sen. Obama had his big winning streak early on, before the scandals and questions related to his history and beliefs arose.

That put Hillary, who is now proving to be our strongest candidate, at a disadvantage. A disadvantage, compounded by the unfair disenfranchising of the voters of Florida and Michigan, something Obama, "Mr. Change/New Politics, clearly couldn't care less about. Why should he care. She won both states.

But . . . Maybe we have just enough time to avoid disaster for our party. I know many people will cry about "the politics of fear," Nope, this is the politics of experience.

Yes, the very idea of another four years of Republican ruin unleashed on our country honestly scares me, and any other sane person. I don't believe that McCain is strong enough to stand up to the powers that rule the GOP, the greedy, shameless Neocons who have raped our nation.

Happily, I also don't think McCain is strong enough to stand against Hillary Clinton, who has shown herself to be one tough contender. My "fear" is that enthralled Obama backers wont "get" this, will demand Obama be our candidate no matter how hopless his chances of winning the General Elections. Winning is secondary.

I think most Americans share my fear that this war will going on and on, and other wars may begin under MaCain. In a time when many military experts warn of possible collapse of our military, at a time when so many of our once staunch allies have become estranged, we need an experienced leader. Not a beginner.

I fear for our ever dwindling civil liberties, and the GOP stacking the Supreme Court with hard right wingers. I fear for American's future as I watch jobs disappearing every day, people losing their homes, savings, health insurance, losing their way of life. Losing all hope.

We simply cannot afford to lose this election to the GOP. This is why I so strongly support Hillary Clinton. Obama ran his campaign on the claim of superior judgement. He sure hasn't shown that. I mean, did he think no one would bring up Wright? Here are just a few of the things Wright has said.


>>> “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” (Sep 2001)

GOD Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” (2003)

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.” (magazine article)

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.” (sermon)

Uh, just exactly how are 911 and African Americans connected? Really, I don't follow that.

Superior judgement? I hardly think that Sen. Obama can make that claim anymore. Still, I fear that if enough Progressives disregard reality and vote for him, we will stand no chance at all of winning the general election.

I fear that if we make Sen. Obama our candidate, we will have built our houses on sand, and a house of cards at that.

What part of OBAMA CAN'T WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION is it that some Democrats don't understand? Attack adds starring Rev. Wright will air constantly, should the Demos make Obama our nominee, and destroy Obama's credibiltiy, and Democrats chances of taking back this nation.

Sen. Obama has done this to himself. Yet even as Obama's supporters tell us the voters of Florida and Michigan should be held accountable for "their mistakes," they don't seem to think Sen. Obama should be held accountable for his own words and awful judgement regarding his spiritual adviser.
Why? Obama's the one running for president.

Hillay's huge win in the Penn. primary was no fluke. The voters have found Obama unacceptable and unelectable.
Not because they are bitter bigots, hicks, old, or any of the other reasons Obama keeps coming up with to explain why he's now losing so many primairies now.

It's because the voters don't want four more years of Bushism. More jobs and homes lost, more war and Haliburton running the country, more economic disaster, and a stacked Supreme Court, just for starts.

What's most important in the end? Obama's shrinking lead, which he got before the Wright scandal hit and offended so many voters? Or the Democrats winning the White House back? Us taking back our country?

Let's stop this "stats" idiocy that keeps Obama "ahead" in the delegates, and allow all the American people to have their votes counted, so we can have a fair election for once? That means Florida and Michigan. They matter as much as any other states, and at least as much as Gaum and Puerto Rico. Even if they don;t support Sen. Obama. If we don't start defending the rights of all Americans to vote, our states will be next.

What really matters is nominating our strongest candidate, Hillary, as our nominee. The rest is pointless if we lose the general elections.
No one can say Hillary isn't one strong contender, and now Obama has damaged himself too badly to win even blue collar Demos.

If Obama can't do any better than he is now against Hillary Clinton, even outspending her 4 to 1, then how can anyone believe he can defeat the Republicans?

In my opinion, if Obama really cares about America, he will step down and give our party the candidate who can beat McCain.
Hillary has shown she is a real fighter, the candidate that's tough enough to defeat the Republicans.

Wright/Obama will only rip this nation apart and take our party down to ruin, but they are rich, so they wont suffer the consequences like the rest of us will, and our troops in combat.

Not only has Obama self destructed, but has now become toxic to other Democrats running. The following articles are just the beginning, and anyone who thinks the attention deprived Rev. Wright will go away and not destroy Obama's candidacy is kidding themselves.

Note that these articles also show that Republicans openly believe that Sen Obama is the more vulnerable, and so the more easily defeated, Democratic candidate. That means even they now know that Hillary is the stronger candidate and our party's best hope of taking back our country from Bush/Cheneyism.

>>>N.C. GOP Leaders Stand By Anti-Obama Ad, RNC, McCain Condemn ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/politics/main4043963.shtml

>>>Republicans in local races run anti-Obama ads - International ...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/27/america/27house.php

>>>In Special Elections, GOP Tests Anti-Obama Strategy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050203648.html

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said of another time,

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

http://www.savethevoters.org/

Why are so many Americans are standing by in silence as their fellow Americans are robbed, politcally raped to be blunt, by being disenfranchised. The voters of Florida and Michigan are being denied their right to vote not because of anything they have done, but because of an ego-driven fued between the state and national headquarters of the party.

I am disgusted by the thoughtless, often downright cruel attitudes I've seen and heard expressed by many of my fellow Progressive Democrats in reagards to the voters of Florida and Michigan. Why don't they care? Because it helps their candidate, Obama? You can bet that if Obama had won these states, they'd be singing a different tune. Selective Progressivism? The silence of good people as their fellow Americans are deprived of their Constitutional rights?

Reasons given and why they are not only hollow but fly in the face of what America is supposed to be all about.

1. It's the rules.
Since when have Progressives, or Americans in general, been so mindlessly obedient to rules? Especially those we have no voice in?
Whatever happened to "Question Authority?" The backbone of our political mindset.

Why is any Democrat suddenly so blinded by the glory of our profoundly inept party leaders. Why haven't these modern "godlings" leading our party been unable to fix this problem by now? Why aren't they fired?

Why is any American supporting our fellow American voters being robbed of their right to vote because of what the "Powers That Be" did?
Whatever happened to the concept of
"POWER TO THE PEOPLE?"
Now it's "POWER TO THE POWERFUL?

2. It's the Voter's fault.
Good Merciful God!
FIRST off, the voters of Florida and Michigan lost all voting rights due to the games played by the powerful. Yet I can only feel horror as I hear even my fellow Democrats say things like . . .

"Those who voted in those primairies knew their votes weren't going to count, so in voting on the day their states held elections they ( voters ) broke our National Party's "holy" rules. So they deserve to lose their vote."
Is this the Twilight Zone?

THEY BROKE THE RULES? Because they voted on election day? Why stop at robbing them of their votes? Let's put them in prison for believing in democracy working. Felony trust?

As a voter I have never yet been asked by the state leaders what day I thought the primary should be held. Have you?

I go vote on election day, in good faith that our leaders are actually able to handle their jobs and my vote will count.

SECONDLY, what about all the voters in these states who didn't go vote due to the warning about the votes being "worthless?"
They also counted on our party's leaders to fix this mess and waited for that to happen before going to the polls, but obviously expected to get to vote at some point?

These people did nothing wrong whatsoever. So, whay are they being punished exactly?
This is the fault of the people, but of our party's leaders. They failed and they should be the one who pay.
A big fine, for example, then new jobs. Our Party's leaders are inept and worthless. They care more about being "important" than about working together to assure the people of ALL STATES their Constitutional rights to have their voices heard in this all important primary. It's past time they get off their duffs and do something.

My fellow Progressives who support Sen. Obama and often talk about some undefined "change." No more dirty politics. Yet many I talk to don't give a d**n about their fellow American's losing their right to vote. Why? This is fair politics? Since when?

Maybe Obama losing both states has something to do with this? And with the delegates and popular votes from Florida and Michigan, Hillary can take this nomination?? Ya think?

What if this happened in your state? Would you still feel that way?

Shouldn't all true Progressives, all Democrats, all true patriotic Americans, be saying, loud and clear, that this is NOT OK. That this needs to be resolved.

That the people of Florida snd Michigan should have the same right to vote as do the citizens of Gaum and Puerto Rico?

ALSO . . . I keep hearing the complaint that Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot. Well, whose fault is that? I saw the ballot and most the other Democrats running were on the ballot. This falls on Obama, not the voters.

There were no rules that you couldn't have your name on the ballots. Just that you couldn't campaign in those states. Obama had to know this because his name was on the Florida ballot. Is this the sort of "new politics" we want?

Why should the people of Michigan be punished because Obama didn't bother himself to put his name on the ballot? Isn't Obama the candidate who claims to be opposed to "old style dirty politics?"
And so shouldn't he be the one fighting the hardest to make certain the all American citizens get to vote, even if he doesn't win those states?

Finally, We have the General Election to look forward to. Something Obama's supporters seem unaware of all too often.

How do you think the citizens of Florida and Michigan will vote in the general election if Democrats disenfranchise them.
GOP? Ya think?

Should Obama get the nomination, they sure wont vote for him after he has dismissed their being robbed of their voices, choosing instead to bash Hillary for fighting for these states votes being counted.
Again, Obama lost both states, but that couldn't possibly have anything to do witn his disinterest in the people of those states rights. Not Saint Obama.

Remember how important big states, like swing state Florida, can be in an election.

This entire debacle is shameful, and we should all be demanding that all Americans get to vote.

Next time it might be your state. If you want to learn more about this issue, go to . . .

http://www.savethevoters.org/

It's not Sen. Clinton, but Sen. Obama who needs to step down, for the sake of the nation, and to save his own political future. The tide has in fact turned. Obama has lost his momentum, and Hillary has regained hers.

But this is no game. The Democrats must be allowed to run the stronger, most able candidate against the Republican Machine, and that's Hillary.

Yes, Sen. Obama is slightly ahead now.
But that lead was won in primaries that took place before "Wright-Gate," and before the many damaging remarks Sen. Obama himself has made. Remarks that have left a large part of even our own party feeling demeaned and angry at Obama.

The Penn. primary has demonstrated just how much the Rev. Wright's shouting "God d**n America," has angered voters. Upon learning that Sen. Obama has, for two decades, considered Wright to be his personal adviser, many voters have decided against Obama.

We need to listen not just to the Obama zealots, but to the average, somewhat Conservative voters needed to win the general election, because in the end, that's all that will matter.

Sen. Obama and his supporters must take their own advice and face reality. That Obama has become not only unelectable himself, but toxic to other Democratic candidates in other races this year. The Republicans are attacking other Democratic candidates simply because they support Sen. Obama. This is not a good sign for Obama, or the Democrats.
http://www.journalnow.net/index.php/trailmix/entry/nc-gop-unveils-ad-invoking-rev-wright/

If Sen. Obama takes the nomination, then takes the party down in flames, what will he have accomplished? Sen. Obama will be blamed for giving McCain the majority of the vote, and for giving Americans another four years of Republicanism that will not differ much from Bush Jr's. Sen. Obama's once promising future in politics will be over.

But, if Sen. Obama stepped down now, while he's still slightly ahead, if he were to make such a sacrifice for the good of our party and our country, he would be hailed as a hero. A true patriot who cares more about his country's well being than about his personal ambitions. This would leave the road to a very bright future in politics wide open to Obama, who is still a very young man.
Giving up the nomination would be seen as an incredible sacrifice, and would end any accusations regarding Sen. Obama's patriotism.

It's a win, win proposition for everyone. Here's why.   Read More »

It's just plain unfair that the "little" people, the average voters in Florida and Michigan, have been stripped of their right to participate in this primary for a "crime" they did not commit. What crime are these "typical" voters guilty of exactly? Trying to take part in our nation's democracy?

Were you asked when your primary should be? We "peasants" just get the flyers telling us what day to go vote, and because we care enough, we go vote. The same goes for the people of Florida snd Michigan.

These voters did everything right, and in good faith. Yet they pay the cost of a stupid fued between the state and national party leaders, who are the ones to blame here.

Just by showing up to vote, they proved that they cared enough about their country to take part in our political process.

Those of us who do not stand up for the right to have their votes counted are failing our fellow Americans. It's disgraceful that so many Democrats don't seem to give a damn if their fellow Americans are shafted by the powers that be.

We should be united in calling for the votes of the Democrats of ALL 50 states to be counted, regardless of which candidate we prefer. This means more than devotion to any politician, or it should in any case.

The Democrats running this party must want to lose this election. I can see no other reason for them to treat milions of innocent voters like disposable trash.

NEWS FLASH TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERS, we the people are not disposable trash, nor are our votes. If anyone should be made to pay for this idiotic debacle, it's the party leaders, not we the people.

YES! WE DO COUNT! ALL OF US!
As a lifelong Progressive, I'm ashamed to hear fellow Progressives actually defending the demeaning disenfranchising of our fellow voters, just because their chosen candidate benefits from this political rape.

It could be your state next time. Being a Progressive used to mean caring about the powerless, not selling out our most cherished beliefs, for ANY candidate.

Furthermore, it's beyond stupid to insult, and drive away, so many voters in states the size of these two, although it would be just as unfair if they were the smallest states in the union.

Democrats will need states like Florida and Michigan if we hope to win the general elections. Does anyone imagine these state's voters will be eager to go vote Democrat again now?

Thanks Party Leaders. You are once again leading our party to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

And a special thank you to Sen. Obama.
In my opinion, the candidate who has based their campaign on "change," "judgement," and doing away with the old "politics as usual," should be the first to protest this sort of unjust disenfranchisement, regardless of the effect it may have on ANY candidate's chances to win the nomination.

Sen. Obama has instead done everyting in his power to see to it that two states remain disenfranchised, just to further his own ambitions.

How can anyone see this and continue to buy this "noble" routine, when the innocent, everyday people he claims to champion are the losers. This is "change?"

I am sick of seeing the "little people" trashed by the powerful. It is not only unfair, it's downright UnAmerican. And it spits in the face of what our party is supposed to represent.
How much more of this sort of change can we take?

Oh my goodness. I can't believe the wailing and whining coming from Obama and his camp, and the Obama backers in the media, regarding his sound defeat in the most recent debate.
All that whining, and the ludicrous claims of of pro-Hillary bias from the media. On what planet? But I think I have it figured out. It's all a brilliant new political strategy, "The Pity Vote."

George Bush Sr. had the "Wimp Factor." Clearly Obama is aiming for the "Pity Factor." Obama just plain got beaten up something awful by that mean old girl, Hillary Clinton, but while most candidates would simply deal with reality, Obama has found a new tactic. Just Whine!

Well, not that new, I and a number of other folks, Progressives I talk to, have thought that Obama was whiney for quite some time now.

Today, Obama was compelled to rejoin the chorus of "Poor Obama" wails coming from his camp, babbling something about how Hillary had stuck him bad, and twisted the blade.

Oh, please. Be a grown up, dude. If you can't take a few hits from Hillary, how do you expect to stand up to the big bad GOP machine? Is this the candidate we want to send up against these cut throats?

Or . . .
Does Obama indeed have a brilliant new plan to whine his way into the White House? "They beat me up! Don't you feel sorry for me, I sure do? Boo hoo."

Yeah, that ought to work alright. Once the voters stop laughing.

Hillary is right, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Obama has proven that the first time he had to face any real heat from the media, he fell apart. Hillary is a thousand times tougher than this guy is.

Then again, this new "Pity Vote" strategy may be his only chance now, since Obama, and his more rabid supporters, has offended so many Americans in so many ways.

Before now, they seemed to gain a lot of ground bullying anyone who wouldn't mindlessly leap aboard the Obama "Love Boat." One of the best examples was the time Obama's supporters booed African American Congress Woman, Sheila Jackson Lee, off the stage for daring to be a Hillary supporter. The fiend!

Then they wonder why the polls aren't reading consistantly? Could it be because some people just tell the pollsters what they figure they want to hear? I suspect a lot of Hillary supporters are just not talking to avoid a "debate" with some Obmamabot, psoing as a pollster. The old silent majority. Guess the upcoming votes will tell.

Still, this "Pity Vote" thing may actually be a stroke of brilliance. This may be the Obama folks means to turn Obama's whiney personality into an assest after all. Hey, why not? At this point in Obama's campaign, it's worth a try.

Meanwhile, Hillary has been taking relentless bashing since the campaign began, and has faced it all with grace and even shown us that she has a terrific sense of humor and can laugh at herself.

Hey, I didn't even support her to begin with, it's been her strength and grace under incredible pressure that have brought me around to be such a stuanch supporter. But that's not pity, it's respect for a grown up, an incredibly strong candidate who can take a punch and stay on her feet.

In any case, the voters have their own point of veiw, as we will see in the Penn. primary soon enough.

In contrast, Sen. Obama has brought on his own troubles, mostly due to his own words. It's astounding that anyone who has so much media support can still manage to damage himself so often, while the candidate the media bashes constantly can laugh it off and make come back after come back.

Obama has done himself major damage in the stereotyping of small town Americans as a bunch of gun toting, bitter old Elmer Fudds in need of a scape goats, who don't like folks that's "different."

Just a bunch of bigots and hicks, to put it plainly. I can only pray that Obama will keep making these sorts of clever remarks so that he can get more and more pity from the American voters.

The Penn. vote will show how "in love" the American voters are with Obama, and who is gaining here.
Then let's talk about who can win the general elections.

Hillary Clinton/President '08

So, Leahy says "Hillary should take her marbles and go home."
No. Leahy needs to take his marbles, if he has any, and go to blazes.

It sounded just like that old cliche, "A woman's place in in the home." No, This woman's place is in the White House.

Hillary is not going "home." She will keep fighting, and so will those of us who support her.

This is just so typical of the whole slant the media has taken on this race. The media deals with Obama on "little cat's feet" while beating the living snot out of Hillary over every word she's ever said, or her supporters have said.

Example, the big whoop about Geraldine Ferraro's remarks, and the tepid media response to the words of Obama's spiritual adviser, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Here's what Ferraro actually said in her original statement.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Of course, she was immediately crucified as a racist by the media, and lashed out in anger, rightfully, IMO, though perhaps not very gracefully.

As a life long Progressive, I understand exactly what Geraldine Ferraro was trying to express. I, too, am sick and tired of being called a racist just because I stick up for Hillary Clinton.

I too am sick of Obama's people trying to bully and emotionally blackmail me into supporting their candidate by holding the cry of "racist" over my head.

I am also tired of seeing the words of Sen. Clinton and her supporters twisted by the media and Obama's supporters to make us "racist" while same media is totally blind to any gender issues involved.

I'm also sick of Obama's lies, like the ones regarding Jeremiah Wright, being ignored.
Lies about an issue that goes to the very heart and soul of who Sen. Obama really is.

Remember some of the things Rev. Wright said. "God D**** America." "The UKK." And my favorite, Wright's remarks that Hillary doesn't know what it feels like to be called names or treated like you're less than a human being. Can anyone really think this wont come back to take Obama down in flames should he become the Demo nominee? Really?

Compare these statements of these two political surrogates, and ask yourself, which was worse.
Why is it somehow "excusable" for a presidential contender to attend a church like that for twenty years, regardless of race, gender, or maybe the "superior judgement" Obama keeps claiming he has?

• Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences. Susan B. Anthony


Enough is enough, and the time for polite silence while our candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is savaged by the media, is over.
Hillary Clinton is determined to fight back and fight on, in the face of overwhelming bigotry in the media, and so am I. And it's time for the kid gloves to come off.

I know that I will get slammed and called names for this post, but I couldn't care less. I am furious, and Susan B. Anthony's words are just as on point today, sadly, as they were over 100 years ago.

I have watched Hillary Clinton, THE ONLY WOMAN TO HAVE EVER SO MUCH AS WON A SINGLE PRIMARY IN A PRESIDENTIAL RACE, being savagely bashed and even called sexist slurs throughout this campaign.
There is no fair coverage of this campaign, not even an effort to be fair. And yes, this campaign has been filled with gut wrenching sexism from the beginning.

The media has clearly already made up their minds who they want. It's the media's job is to cover the campaign, not decide it. Or do what they did today, have a Tarot card reader on to tell us the future results of this race.
It's the issues, stupid.

Now is the time to strongly defend our candidate, even if she is "just a woman." And let's face it, that has been the biggest strikes against her from day one.

The notion that sexism is not a powerful factor here is idiotic. Sexism is the invisable issue here, and despite media blindness, there is a growing rage out here among many supporters of Sen. Clinton and how she is being treated. I have never before seen any candidate treated so unfairly.

As a woman, Hillary has been bashed no matter what she does. If she is emotional, she is "unstable." If she is angry, she is a "B***H." She can do no right, and Sen. Obama can do no wrong. Even when he lies to our faces regarding his knowledge of the content of Rev. Wright's speeches.

If you are a supporter of Sen. Clinton, you probably understand exactly what I'm talking about in regards to the way the media, and some in the Demo party, are treating Hillary Clinton.

Instead of reading Tarot Cards, how about the media reporting the fact that Hillary is ahead in the upcoming Penn. primary by double digits?
How about not ignoring that the nation is still reeling from Obama's "Wright-Gate," a gift that will keep on giving, and which will not make Obama likely to win the general elections, should Demos be foolish enough to make him our nominee.

Check out the polls on how many Clinton backers will be willing to vote for Obama if Clinton is bashed to death in this race. The numbers are astoundingly against Obama picking up Clinton's supporters. There's a reason for that. BIAS!

Reality check. Sen. Obama can't win the general election, period. Anyone who doesn't think Wright will ruin Obama is kidding themselves. Rove is already drooling in anticipation.
Yet the media "talking heads" keep bashing our only viable candidate.

Meanwhile, we are expected to stand by in polite silence as our candidate is savaged, just to throw away our hope of taking back the presidency and the nation?
NO!
The time has come for Clinton's supporters to send our media and our party a strong message. BE FAIR TO BOTH DEMOS AND DISCUSS ISSUES WE CARE ABOUT!!!

Why is Obama so coddled while Clinton is constantly bashed.
Example Obama; After Wright-Gate revealed the man Sen. Obama chose as his personal "spiritual guide," is a ranting, America hating lunatic, Sen. Obama gazed into the TV cameras and swore he had no clue that Wright had ever preached such hate filled sermons.

A couple of days later, Sen. Obama admitted that in truth, he had been aware of the bent of Wright's rants.
Gee, didn't we used to call that sort of thing lying?

But the media never even mentioned this small aside. They were far too busy this entire past week beating up on Hillary Clinton over something which happened more than a decade ago in the Serbian war.

Funny thing, while these astute media pudits babbled endlessly about Clinton's half joking, off the cuff remark, they seem to have forgotten that,
UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THEN PRESIDENT CLINTON, GEN. WES CLARK LED A NATO FORCE THAT ENDED THE SERBS "ETHNIC CLEANSING," AKA, GENOCIDE WHICH THE SERBS HAD INFLICTED ON OTHER RACES IN THE REGION, AND SAVED AROUND ONE MILLION LIVES, WITHOUT LOSING THE LIFE OF ONE SINGLE ALLIED TROOP!!!
It is NOT the job of the media to campaign for Sen. Obama. It is not their place to try to "direct" our attention to what they think we should be discussing.

Hillary is right, we wont just give up.
It's time to fight back, get mad, and not take it anymore. Our candidate has the right, and her supporters have the right, to fair coverage of this campaign. The voters make the call, not the media, not the party elite.
WE THE VOTERS DECIDE!
NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER!

Just an idea.

I keep reading posts on message boards about how evil the Clintons are, but they never seem to have the, uh, time?, to go into just exactly what it is that the Clintons have done that is so evil.

I remember the Clinton presidency as a time of peace, a sound economy, programs that helped people who were struggling, and a much more civil, happy time in America. I felt safe, that Bill Clinton would never, for example, jump willy nilly into a war unless he was forced to. That our economy was getting better, not worse by the day.

So, let's hear what it is, exactly, that President Clinton's two terms in office did that was so dispicable? Sure, they made mistakes, and you can never please everyone.

I remember those years as good times. Times during which, I might add, Bill Clinton was so popular that I used to receive politcal tracts from Republicans running for office, with photos on the cover showing the Reppublicans grinning from ear to ear while shaking Bills hand. How awful could the Clintons really be if even the Republicans wanted his endorsment.

Go ahead, knock yourselves out thinking about all the awful things the Clinton WH did. But while you're at it, try to remember all the good things that administration did as well.
There's a lot to think about there.

It has to be incredibly hard to campaign for the American presidency. The amount of time, energy and money that the candidates have put into this race have to have taken a terrible toll on them, their families, friends, and suppporters.
For this reason, I feel sympathy for Sen. Obama, who, despite the fight he is still putting up, is undoubtedly smart enough to realize that there is now no hope of his winning the general elections and becoming our next president. It's time to face reality.

Even if he wins the Demo nomination, in order to win the general election, he would have to not only have the backing of the majority of the Democrats, but also a good portion of the Independent and Republican vote as well. He wont be able to get that backing now.

The fact is that his long, close relationship with his spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright, has permanantly destroyed Sen. Obama's chances of winning this general election. The sooner Sen. Obama realizes this, and steps down, putting an end to the turmoil now ripping the Democratic party in half, the better for all Democrats.

I can't blame Sen. Obama for not wanting to give up, after having come so close to being president. It has to be just a horrible, painful thing to deal with, and though I wont lie and claim to care much for Obama, I do understand that anyone in his place would be disinclined to just give it all up. Sadly, his efforts to hang on to a lost cause are only doing damage to the party, and the nation, he wants to lead. I don't believe he wants that.

The question is, what matters more, to Sen. Obama, and to the Democrats? Having Sen. Obama take the nomination and lose the general elections, or giving our party a fighting chance of taking back the White House and the nation, from the inept Neocons who have lain waste to our once strong, stable country?

I believe that Sen. Clinton can and will beat McCain in the general elections. But the longer this campaign goes on, the more Sen. Obama's supporters attack and demonize Hillary Clinton in their desperation to hang on, the better the chances are that we will end up with another four years of Republicanism.

Our nation just cannot endure this, considering how desperate a state this nation is in now.

Sen. Obama, IMO, jumped into the world of presidential politics far too soon. He wants to make change happen fast, understandable. But after the American people heard the messages that were preached by Rev. Wright, the hopes of Obama winning the general elections ended.

The world of politics can turn on a dime. What looks like certain victory can be lost overnight. That happened to Howard Dean, and now it has happened to Sen. Obama. Maybe it wasn't fair, maybe Sen. Obama shouldn't be held accountable for the words of his spiritual adviser, maybe white people don't understand the anger expressed in Wright's sermons. Maybe Sen. Obama would have made a great president.

None the less, Sen. Obama set the bar himself, claiming superior judgement, and his long term attending of this sort of church has crushed that claim. It has brought not only Obama's judgement into question, but his entire character. His words on talk shows has only made matters worse, and the frantic attacks from his supporters on Sen. Clinton are only adding fuel to the Republican fires, and strength to their candidate. It's time to call a truce and stop the self destruction of our party.

Sen. Obama has come to a fork in the road. He can choose to cling to false hopes, continue to attack Sen. Clinton and harm her chances of winning the general eletions if she is our nominee, or win the nomination, and then lose the general elections to McCain.

Then go down in history as one of the worst spoilers in the history of American politics. Look at how beat up Nader was after his small imp[act in the 2000 elections. Obama will never, ever recover from a defeat in the general elections, and I fear our nation may never recover either.

Or Sen. Obama can do the noble thing. He can use his God-given gift for making great and meaningful speeches, reunite our party, put his personal ambitions aside, and throw his support behind the one Democratic candidate who has a chance to keep the nation from falling into the hands of the GOP for another four years, Sen. Clinton.

Should Sen. Obama choose the second fork in the road, he will be seen, rightfully so, as a heroic figure. As a man who put his nation's well being ahead of his dreams of being president.

It could even be enough to save his future in politics, and allow him to someday run again, this time with a good deal more political knowledge that could lead to a victory. It's not an easy thing to do, but it is the best, most honorable thing to do. I believe that. deep down, Sen. Obama already knows this. I pray that he does.

It's an odd pairing, Sen. Obama and the suddenly incredibly important former child model in Hillary Clinton's ad. Yet here she is again, a girl whose stock photo footage was used not, as said former child model seems to believe, because she was clearly some sort of future politcal leader. But because of what she represented. A sleeping child in need of protection.

I wont bother to even look up the name of this former child model, who seems to be getting a lot of attention without my help.
I do wonder why she chooses to believe that having had stock footage of herself used in a political ad places her somehow above the rest of us in political judgement.
Or maybe she's just hoping all the national attention she has received will help her find more work as a model?

She certainly is making the most of this freak incident, making yet another appearance on the national media stage to avail us of her wisdom, weeks after the "big story," that she is ( gasp ) an Obama supporter shattered headlines round the globe. Now she's back, eager to offer us more guidance. Oh joy.

Are we supposed to be waiting breathlessly to see if she's perhaps switched sides? Are we actually supposed to care?
Honestly, the entire thing is ludicrous, beyond pointless, especially in the face of the true issues American voters are now dealing with. It might seem that, in times like these, we have far more important issues to concern ourselves with than this.

Besides, as a rule, I do not look to models of any age for poltical guidance. That's why I have to wonder why it is that this young woman, and some people in the media, seem to think that we should all be somehow impressed by her opinions regarding this campaign. And why right now?

Why, despite this "story" being several weeks old, this former child model has once again jumped into the limelight. Why now?

Well, it could have a little something to do with ambition. Her's, and Sen. Obama's.

I guess my suspicions are based on her reappearing just at the moment that Sen. Obama is so desperately trying to turn the nation's attention away from the recent "Wright-Gate" scandal. Could there be a connection? Ya think?

I do. Obama is clearly desperate to turn the nation's attention away from Wright's anti-American teachings. Turn the media's attention to something, anything, but "Wright-Gate."

Yep, Sen. Obama's having dropped nearly 10 points in the polls since the "Wright-Gate" story broke may have something to do with his frantic efforts to change the topic of national politcal debate. More "change?"

Sorry. It wont work, the damage is done, and this is the sort of ugly scandal that wont go away. Even if you can get that former child model to come racing to the "rescue."

Sadly, this young woman's sudden reappearance on the poltical stage reveals far more about the character and desperation of Sen. Obama than it does about anything having to do with the issues facing the American people.
It reveals that Sen. Obama is far more concerned with his own ambitions than the good of the nation. Or even "change."

It is also clear that this young woman could be hoping to re-start her former carrer. Why not, with the economy in tatters due to the Bush administration. A lot of folks are looking for work out there, and this freak incident has afforded her with an oppurtunity that will not likely come again. Few people would pass up such an oppurtunity.

But the notion that this woman's political views are somehow of more importance than anyone esles tends to offend me.

It's almost as insulting as the claim by some Obama supporters that white women were too stupid to grasp that the "3 AM Ad" was about an international crisis, as opposed to the idea that some African American male was outside our homes, just waiting to break in and harm our young 'uns.

Yes, that sort of misogynistic myth regarding white women offends me more than words can say. That all white women are drones under some spell of "sub-racism."
The Obama camp has thrown that race card a lot in this campaign, but that had to be the dumbest and most predjudiced claim I've ever heard in any campaign.

And that was BEFORE "Wright-Gate" put Sen. Obama into his now desperate situation. Despite the stubborn refusal of Sen. Obama and his hardcore supporters to face facts, "Wright-Gate" has destroyed any hopes Obama may have had that he will ever be able to get the votes of enough Americans to win the general elections.

It's over, and the sooner Sen. Obama realizes this harsh truth, and steps down for the good of the party and the nation, the better. He could reunite the party and even come out of this with his future in politics intact.

Or he can continue along this path of distraction politics, continue to cling to vain hopes, and take the entire party down with him.

This will result not only in ending Democrat's hopes of winning back the White House, and taking back our nation from the right wingers, but will prove the true nature of the man.

He can choose to step down, use his speech making skills to reunite the party and help lead us to victory in November, or to be a spoiler.

I can only hope that Sen. Obama will see that his hopes of winning the White House are over, and step down in time to save us from four more years of Bushism politics. I wont count on it, but I suppose it's possible the good of the nation will mean more to Sen. Obama than his personal ambitions.

Media pundits, and some supporters of Sen. Obama, are calling for Sen. Clinton to drop out of the race now. Have these folks been in a coma the past few days? Did they somehow miss Sen. Obama's stunning fall from grace, due to his own lack of judgement and honesty, the very merits he has run his campaign on?

It is Sen. Obama who needs to do the right thing by the party and the nation, and drop out of this race. If he truly does love America, then stepping down, and allowing the Democrats to nominate a candidate who can, and will, win against McCain, is the only honorable thing he can do.

Clinging to a false hope now can only divide the party, hurt the nation, and ruin Sen. Obama's hopes of ever recovering from this scandal.

If he hangs on, he will end up in the same political catagory as Ralph Nader, remembered as a candidate who destroyed the Democrat's chances of winning the White House at an all important time.

If he steps down now, he can do so with honor, and maintain much of the American people's respect for putting his nation first. He can win back people's respect now only by stepping down and allowing the party to reunite and move forward.

Sen. Obama needs to face the reality that he cannot win this election now, painful as it is, and to put his nation before his ambitons. The question is, will he?

In his most recent speech, Sen. Obama spoke well enough, but race is not the real issue Americans are concerned with here. That speech showed Americans exactly why Sen. Obama isn't the right candidate for the Democrats to nominate. That though he may be brilliant in some regards, he is not nearly ready to lead this country.

I had feared this sort of thing from the beginning.
Little is really known about Obama, and the GOP wont hesitate to find any and everything they can in Obama's history to hurt his chances. So, questions from fellow Democrats about his character are certainly logical at this point. For example . . .

When the story hit, revealing that Obama had attended the church of Wright, for twenty years, had been married by Wright, and even called Wright his spiritual adviser, Sen. Obama panicked and claimed that he knew nothing of Wright's un-American speeches.

A candidate breaking under pressure, and not telling the people the truth, is not what Americans want to see in a potential president. Not on an issue this basic to who the candidate is.

Then yesterday, he reversed himself, stated exactly the opposite. That he had known that Wright's speeches included un-American sentiments like those we saw in the clips of Wright's sermons.

It has became more than just a matter of poor judgement in choosing his church and spiritual adviser, it became a matter of credibility, the American people do not trust Sen. Obama any longer.

Does Sen. Obama, or any logical thinker, actually believe that Obama can now win the general elections, can pull in the moderates and Republicans needed, after American's heard the mind-set of Obama's spiritual leader? He's already lost many, if not most, of the Democrats.

Everything has changed now. He is ruined as a viable candidate. The GOP will eat the Democrats alive with this sort of thing.

Yet media pundits are saying the Democrats should wait another four years, until the 2012 elections, to regain the White House, and take our country back from the GOP.
Are they insane? Suffering through another four years of GOPism is not going to be acceptable to Democrats.

The best and most obvious solution would be for Sen. Obama to drop out of the race and allow the party to move forward as a united force, not as enemy camps, with an unelectable nominee. He must do this, for the good of the nation.

We need to make it clear to Sen. Obama that losing this presidential election is not an option. It is not acceptable. If he truly loves this country, and his party, then he will not destroy our chances of winning back the White House.

We all need to remind ourselves that this election is not about any one individual, but about an entire nation.

Obama is telling voters that our U.S. troops in Afghanistan are now forced to arm themselves with stolen Taliban weapons. That's outrageous!
But wait a minute, Sen. Obama is the chairman on the Senate committee on Afghanistan. Yet he has failed to attend even one committee meeting to make one "change!" Why?

Looks like he's just been too busy running for president to have time to waste keeping our troops in Afghanistan alive. The good Senator is clearly more interested in being president in taking care of our troops who are fighting and dying.

What does Sen. Obama do instead?

Sen. Obama smiles for the camera and shouts hollow slogans. Our troops remain forgotten, forced to go out among the Taliban fanatics to scrounge for the weapons. WEAPONS!!!

Is this the sort of "change" we can expect, the "Change we can believe in." Funny, I've been writing posts and letters to our folks in Congress for years on this subject, our troops going without even decent weapons.

Yet Obama has been in a position for 14 MONTHS to do something to "change" this travesty, maybe even save some of our troops lives. That would be a real change we could believe in. But all we got, all the troops got, was slogans.

How can we trust this guy? He has broken his word to the Illinois voters who put him in the Senate, after promising them he would serve his full six years, then, ut oh, being too eager to run for president to keep his word. Kinda a theme forming here.

He has also broken promises regarding funding for his campaign, yet refuses to fully reveal his numbers and sources.

Most importantly, the promise/duty he took on when he chose to become the Chairman of the Afghanistan Committee as well. So, why did he ever take on this chairmanship? Some sort of status thing?

If I'd done this, I'd be too ashamed to show my face, even less go out and face the American people and make more promises. How can we trust this man? He has made too many promises he hasn't kept in too short a carreer.

How can anyone do that, ignore our troops dying on the battle fields, leave them to scrounge for weapons when they are defending us from the Taliban, al Qeada, Bin Laden? Yet he says we should be fighting in Afghanistan! Talk about touble talk.

Now this incredibly ambitous man is trying to use his own failures to further his ambitions, actually complaining about the lack of weapons in Afghanistan.

Does he think folks wouldn't notice this hypocrisy? Has he no conscience at all?

It's no wonder that so many highly placed Flag Officers, many of whom retired, or left the Pentagon after trying to keep our focus on the Taliban and getting al Qeada and Bin Laden. Nearly thirty Flag Officers have thrown their full support behind Hillary Clinton.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27133


IMO, Sen. Obama has lost any "moral authority" he may have seemed to have by being "too busy" to provide our troops in Afghanistan with the weapons they need. Honestly, couldn't he have spared a couple of days for the troops? How ambitious is this guy? It's unnerving. IMO, the only "change" this guy is interested in is his becoming president.

Then what?

Hey, Texas! Ohio! All you other expendable states out there who didn't get a vote yet. Aren't you folks the lucky ones?

Just when you thought your input might be of some importance in choosing the next president of The United States Of America, we all get to see that your opinion and votes aren't even needed, or wanted, by the national media. It's all been decided already. In The GOP, McCain will just walk into the nomination, with the media refusing to waste it's 24/7 time even discussing Huckabee or Ron Paul.

The equally lucky Democrats are also getting this kind of "service" from our omnipotent media.

Now, before even the second Super Tuesday voters have had their say, the media has proclaimed that Obama will be the Democrat's nomimee. No need for the silly input of some of our nation's largest states, or of the rest of the states still holding roughly half the voter's delegates without having been given a chance to vote.
What a glorious age we now live in when the voters of America are no longer even needed to make the decisions about who will be running this country, who will be making the decisions that effect so many aspects of our lives.

We, the voters, have become obsolete in today's "Media Democracy." The over-payed, often somewhat demented, glib and more often than not, sadly empty talking heads wil decide, not unlike the Wizard of Oz image, shouting over any who might disagree.

Just like that "wizard" behind the curtain, those godlings of the media are ready and willing to just take right over the