There is no next time for Clinton. She's done.

As much as Obama would like to change how politics is done, it's not going to happen overnight.

My stepfather told me about classic smear tactics... hmm, lemme look it up.

Here.

http://www.mendosa.com/politics.html

My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.

When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead--to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!

Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background--no, not when you consider the other members of his family:

His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.

The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.

My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.

His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church.

His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.

His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo sapien.

His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.

His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.

His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers.

And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.

The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself. Do your duty.

This has been going on a long time.

He may well be. I find it hard to believe two people could be from the same state and NOT be George Allen.

Only within the state boundaries?

Why won't you reject and denounce any statement made by a Virginian outside the state?  Clearly you secretly agree with their hateful, divisive language.

I notice that you posted your response one minute before my follow-up comment. I can only assume that you finally acted only because you were aware I was about to post this second comment. Although we appreciate that you have finally attempted to separate yourself from your clone, George Allen, it is disappointing that you apparently have done so only under pressure and not before now.

We accept your denouncirejectification, and hope that we can finally return to discussing the issues that truly affect Americans, and finally move forward from the bigotry of the past.

How so?

IMO anyone who says that they will be the nominee in 2007, facing the competition she faced, and then tries to do and say anything to win clearly feels entitled. But reasonable people can disagree.

anyone who plays the race card right off the bat is a troll IMO

You're confused about what entitlement means. You're also confused about who needs to get over what.

Point these things out?

Sure.

But both Pfleger and Wright know (or should know) full well that the methodology used did nothing to advance the ball on such issues.

As I've said in many, many posts - while I'm no expert or insider on Chicago activism, I'm involved and know enough to be familiar with both Pfleger and Wright well before they became national names.  I'm fully aware of the work they've done.

I can't help but phrase it this way - but they were both, in effect, "preaching to the choir".

I'm sure they're both aware that they won no converts, advanced their hopes and desires on issues that are indeed of importance no further.

Now... The Pfleger/Wright defense is that they WERE speaking to a congregation, not to some random rally - and the tone, tactics, rhetoric, etc of a preacher on the pulpit is fundamentally different than something outside of the church.

I think there's plenty of validity to that.

But - it doesn't detract from the point that they simply did not do their very worthy causes and ministries any favors.

I absolutely, positively, 100% agree that it's awful the way they're being caricatured by a few minutes of YouTube clips.

But that doesn't change the facts that the clips are now out there - and that rather than talking about the causes that I know mean a lot to them, they are now forced to talk about distractions and rhetoric.

It's not a simple question or answer to me.  

Like much of life, it's complicated, no doubt.

Look, I will vote for Obama regardless.  But what do you expect the average American voter to do?  If they have a clip of somebody on YouTube, they ARE going to use that to form a judgment whether you or I like it or not.  And I for one can at least sympathize with their feelings because I think Rev. Wright and Pfleger's statements are reprehensible.  However, I will vote on the issues, not "values".  I think the so-called "values" vote is going to be won by McCain at this point, unless some more bad news breaks on some of his associations, etc.

Well Obama should not have to be pressured to repudiate this man's remarks.  He is the unity candidate, the candidate of change, and hope.  Surely hearing that these comments were made at his church should sadden and trouble him, and should be denounced without provocation.  If I were a political candidate and someone made such remarks at my temple I would let the temple leadership know my feelings ("deeply troubled", etc) and issue a press release / statement letting it be known that I disagree with the speaker.

Do you belong to a church / temple / mosque / other?  It is a community.  It does represent something in the community.  You are associated with what that church represents, what the leaders believe, through your membership and participation - for instance, do you support gay rights?  I bet your answer and your pastor / rabbi's views are not that far off.  There is even a Catholic church here in town where they are very openly gay / minority friendly - and though they are somewhat constricted by official Catholic doctrine they are well-known as a tolerant congregation.  Other congregations and denominations are not so tolerant or progressive - and nor, I believe, are many of their members.

I believe guilt by association is valid in this case because I would feel personally guilty if someone said something so vile at my temple, even if I was not present when it happened.

With all due respect, friends and family are one thing.  You are friends with people because you go out to lunch with them, or have an easy conversation with them, etc.  You cannot choose your family, as Obama rightly pointed out.

But you can and do choose a church / temple / mosque / spiritual group based on the ideas and beliefs of said group.  Obama has sought out this congregation and been an active member for 20 years.  He was certainly close friends with Wright - but I will grant you that he does not share ALL of Reverend Wright's views.  Still I feel he must share some of them, up to and possibly including some subtle forms of reverse racism - I'm just trying to deduce something rational based on everything I know - and I don't mean to cause offense by saying that someone might harbor some minor forms of racist or reverse racist thought - I believe the vast majority of us do.  Why else would he have been a member of such a congregation for so long?  What else are we supposed to believe?  He belonged to the church and just sat in a vegetative state in the audience?  He belonged only for political reasons?  OK... maybe.  But I'm not buying it...

A man is best judged by the company he keeps.

Obama is lacking in the basic civic virtue of decency. His longstanding voluntary support and association of a bigoted organization is unacceptable.

America deserves someone better.

But have you held out any of these people publicly on your website while you seek the highest office in the United States, running on platform of hope, unity and new politics?