Insurance against a flame out.

C'mon, Texans--vote Hillary!

Our MCM (mainstream corporate media) has once again not served the public and voters well--too much prattle about silly thing, too much horse race, and way, way too little about issues, proposals, and past history.

The MCM thinks it can choose our candidates and then our president for us. So far, they've been doing very well and have been meeting their goals.

On the other hand, I also think that the majority are mesmerized and are easily lead... they are followers. When you read about the experience that people have when seeing or hearing Obama, you hear about what happens to their body, their senses, their mind. They state their shared interest is "change" but that is pretty ambiguous.

Add to that, the inability to hear, or tolerate any criticism of, or question any policy, or request any information about him is irrational.

There is little discussion or process about electing a president. Those that attempt to do so are being caged and vilified.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I get the sense that you read any disagreement with your view (pro-Obama) as bashing. For example I for one don't have any issue with Sen Obama, except the following:

1. He is not experienced enough for me,
   
2. He seems to be dividing the Democratic party for his own win (a tactic, but one I don't like),
   
3. He is injecting too much religious symbolism, language and tactics into his run. This is not an anti-religion issue, but I am a very strict believer of separation of religion and politics,
   
4. He is using the Iraq war vote, when he would have probably voted the same way if he was actually in a position to have to take a stand that would have effected his political career.

Consider that you may be reacting a little too much to people whose opinions differ from yours. And a little bit of the language you use suggests that you may have jumped on the bandwagon a little too hard. It is always a good feeling to be on the winning side. Right now you appear to be backing the winning candidate. But keep in mind that your "opponents" are people who actually share your views, and that the "enemy," Sen Clinton, also shares the same views. And she is a very accomplished and impressive individual, not "the enemy."

The media discovered and promoted Carter. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

"What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months."

Because many of us are uncomfortable with religion creeping into our government. It's called separation of church and state. The idea that because Repubs do it we should do it too rather than attack it makes me shake my head in wonderment.

I really want to explain to you why this bothers me, because I don't think the case has been made clear.  It's not that Obama is being supported by a "good" or a "bad" PAC, it's that he says all PACs are wrong, and his supporters say all PACs are wrong...except for the "good" ones that are really energetic about getting Obama elected.  If Obama really wanted to stop his PACs, he could, but they are working really well for him, so he's not.  To me, that's hypocritical.  Now, is it bad?  Well--it's politics; but his campaign is all about his judgment and his character, and changing the landscape of American political campaigns, and here he is doing the EXACT SAME THING he says is bad.  It goes back to the plagiarism thing.  If your sole campaign is based on the issue of your good character and good judgment, then you should be scrutinized on points that relate to these characteristics.

I liken this to my view on hate crimes legislation.  In my opinion it is highly unconstitutional to penalize someone for what they were thinking when a crime was committed; however, because it punishes people who attack minorities and gays, I'm not shouting too loudly to get the statutes removed.  I feel the law benefits me, and while it is, in my opinion, unjust, I'm not going to rally at the capitol to stop it.

It didn't.

And we exchanged a couple emails about it. I'm sure I wasn't the only person who wrote in to register that concern.

The title of that story on Politico now reads different from what Wolfson posted on Clinton's blog and has for 18 hours now. There is currently no longer a reference on Politico to "terrorism" in the title of that piece. But Senator Clinton hasn't changed her website all day. You click on Howard Wolfson's "read more" link and Ben Smith has changed the title to "Obama once visited '60s radicals."

There's no indication of this change on Senator Clinton's website.

That is a deal breaker. If Ben Smith and Politico can correct the title of an already flawed story with poor sourcing, certainly Senator Clinton can pull her reference to a flawed and rescinded title that no longer actually exists at the link she send her readers to. That's the least she owes a fellow Democrat and her supporters.

Or sometimes, ofttimes comes the question, how in the world did I end up with this clown? Were that first feverish love sustainable we wouldn't have a 50% divorce rate in this country and being a Divorce Lawyer wouldn't be such a lucrative career.

This is the reason those of us not struck by Obama-mania want the substance of where he stands on issues.

When the Magic Fades

Up until now The Chosen One's speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we've been here all along?

You know who made the same argument? John Edwards.

There are literally dozens of these sites for Hillary and Obama. I think it's just some sort of ad-scam thing.