Of for Christ’s sake. If some intemperate remarks by the pastor at some guy’s church is the most damning evidence you can come up with against Obama, that guy is in like Flint.

The reason is that the American voter (in this case those in the Dem. Party) has dumbed down.

Enough evidences of this not only in these internal elections, but also who can, with a little bit of brain, not only elected but even worse re-elect GWB????

If you want to see somebody with skanky, sleazy friends, just look to the current Chimperor-in-Chief. Holy shit!!

You have to be blind or really stupid to believe obama was never present when these comments were made.
“Chimperor-in-Chief” you will call Obama that to I guess.

Incongruously, it does seem Obama decided to run for Presnet late in the day for him not to have cleaned up all these negative contacts AND he had to be hit in the head 3-4 times to finally give them up. I think Obama got a good mouthfull of the coolaid, and if my own life is any guide, he’s probably pretty well pussy-whipped into the religious thing as well==gotta keep the wifey happy.

Still–like Carl Rove and Cheney, it will be interesting to find out who the real power is behind Obama. I only hope the expertise and overall message they have chosen continues to be demonstrated after he gets elected.

Yeah right. He was just an ordinary black pastor, but when Obama wasn’t there, it was time to hate Whitey.

Even Obama doesn’t claim that.

The reality is Obama wanted to be close to this church for his own political reasons, and he doesn’t consider what this guy said to be wrong.

Even Oprah dropped this church.

Is FUD the best you have to offer, Doc? Which ones of Obama’s “friends” have you “seen”? The wacky retired pastor, who never said any of his wacky shit while Obama was attending the church, and whom Obama has now disavowed?

If you want to see somebody with skanky, sleazy friends, just look to the current Chimperor-in-Chief. Holy shit!!

No offense but where are you getting your political information?

Hillary has had the traditional big Dem donors behind her.

Obama came at it from a very different direstion with MANY MORE smaller donors… very few from the “dem-moneymachine’ as you call it.

Here is one of MANY links describing pretty much the opposite of what you say:
http://tinyurl.com/3kl596

And as for her losing because she’s a woman “period” … you have any sort of polling data or even a decent link which makes you think that?

In the short term, that means he can say things like “hope and change”, without really telling anyone what that “hope and change” is. Its really a great racket when you get down to it, but I am not sure its going to be able to hold up all the way into November. The Primary debates were by and large between people that share the same beliefs, not only that the very people that Clinton needed to win, were the same people that are fainting at Obama ralleys. As dems have showed in the past, its hard to argue with someone who is that emotional.

The General election will be different. Both sides will need to appeal to more than their base, and both sides will be going after that middle 10% that really wins the election, and both sides will be coming at it from completely different point of view. And Obama will not be able to count on the fainting masses to propel him though it. He is going to have to actually argue the issues, take positions that are going to upset one group or the other, something that he has shown in the past thats he’s not very good at.

No matter what it should be interesting.

Is it too much to suggest they both ran great campaigns, but only one could be the nominee?

And after this is done, lest we forget, nobody has won anything. It really is all about winning against McCain.