i think the medias vastly over estimating the effects of his comments...because fact is, a lot of people probably related to that comment.

The comments are obvious being overblown just like nearly every single comment by any of the candidates. Especially this year. But what the media feeds people is usually what they believe and follow.

Replace the last Hilary with Obama and yeah you are spot on.

Obama hasnt one major mistake this whole campaign; the wright shit didnt work where as hillarys bosnia lie has been the most dsamaging bit to any campaign this year.

Now that's some spin if I ever heard some.

The Wright controversy has caused a lot of people to jump ship (including any inkling I had of liking Obama) and the other reverend controversy caused more.

The Bosnian thing was a misspeak and that hardly hurt her campaign.

Are you kidding?

Until it was brought up here it hasn't been mentioned much of late unless I'm completely oblivious (which given the time I get to spend following politics this month could be).

The Wright thing certainly had an effect, but misspoke, misspoke would mean I said I was under sniper fire in Bosnia when really it was Rwanda.

In this case, HIllary misspoke by stealing the story of another female senator who did come under sniper fire, normally we call that lying.

The misspoke defense cracks me up, just like she misspoke about the pregnant girl who died.

Its not like HIllary has not been caught lying before (she lied about Whitewater during her book tour while Bill was President).

I've liked HIllary (though this election has changed my opinion somewhat), but when you have a history of bending the truth, misspeaking just doesn't explain it away. She wanted to appear tough so she lied.

Its called politics. Just like I'd say that Obama's comments were a "misspeak" (ok maybe I'm too broadly defining the word).

Hillary has a history of bending the truth? Say it isn't so! Heh. Still, I'd rather see a woman who bends the truth than ancient McCain or Obama in the office anyday.

"Bend the truth"? I'm tired of the past 7.5 years of having a liar in the White House, personally.

wow, your realistic arent you?

Obviously you haven't followed the presidential office very long (I'm not saying that in a bad way), because that's pretty much what Bill Clinton did. And uhh..Obama is a fucking idiot anyway and McCain has a host of issues (such as why only rich men/women can be presidential candidates these days -- thinks McCain/Feingold Campaign Reform).

Yeah Obama did misspeak. Obviously he did not mean to say bitter. He was probably thinking more in the lines of frustrated. People are not bitter, they are frustrated. That is misspeaking.
Hilary on the other hand freaking wrote a book on her trip to Bosnia so obviously it must be implanted in her brain well. Now if she said something like we went to Kenya where the natives were extremely hostile...that would be more forgiveable. But no, she started talking about the plane doing some sort of "barrel rolls" and sniper fire, and she just said it with so much conviction and in so much detail that it is not misspeaking. It's plain lying.

Right...and he didn't know about Wright's insane sermons...and he didn't know that saying someone was a "typical white person" was offensive...and umm...should I go on?

You seem to be confusing LIES with things that you don't like. Big difference.

Obama lied about his knowledge of what Wright has said. I'm not an idiot and the American people are not idiots.

When did he lie? He said that he personally knows Wright and knows that while he's not perfect, there's enough good in him that he's not about to throw him to the wolves. Meh, this bores me now. Go about your ranty ways. It's cute.

Oh come on, he said he was unaware of the depths of Wright's comments and you and I both know that was just a bold faced lie.

I'm not saying Hillary is a godsend or the best candidate for president, hell I'm not even sure how I feel about her overall, but she's a hell of a lot better than Obama. The only reason Obama has made it this far is because young people are followers and have followed after this "cool candidate to vote for" and because the media has propped him up.

He has no platform, little experience and few good traits (as far as a president goes).

First part is pure speculation. You can know someone 20 years and not even know who they really are. Happens all the time.

Second part, you must be kidding. "She's a hell of a lot better.." Sure, in hell she'd rule with an iron fist but Obama would be more compassionate. Plus, the idea that his popularity is due to "young followers" when he's actually well liked/supported across all spectrums, but I do agree the media has propped him up. Anyone but a Clinton is the key for me.

Third part, Hillary qualifies for all three of those points too.

I don't think it is pure speculation. If I trust someone for 20 years as my spiritual guide I better be damned sure I know what they believe. If he didn't, then he really is an idiot. I'm sorry, there is just no other way to put it.

I think a huge portion of Obama's popularity is due to the MTV generation flocking after him. Any candidate is going to have supporters among various demographics, but specifically my age group is just flocking after him like he is the messiah. Very scary.

No, Hillary actually has a reasonable platform that doesn't depend on the ambiguous mantra of "change!!!".

There is a term of people that agree with everything. It's called "yes men." In any case, plenty of pastors have interesting political beliefs; it is irrelevant to their congregations for the most part.

Very scary, eh? A Hillary nomination would lose an entire generation of Democratic voters, like what happened against Reagan. Since I'm Republican, I welcome you and your ilk's naivete in supporting the female Mondale, the staid loser that plays politics for the sake thereof. Are you old enough to remember Mondale? He won one state to Reagan's 49. Democrats would do well to heed Obama's popularity among younger voters.

Clinton and Obama have similar platforms of comparable specificity. The accusation of ambiguity is an intellectually bankrupt attack with no supporting evidence. Just another pointless attack point, typical of the Clintons.

Have you actually listened to Obama's speeches? Until you do and can show me where he has presented an actual platform and where he intends to implement this ambiguous mantra of "change!!!" then I'm not going to debate further on that topic.

Have you actually read his policy proposals? Or would that be too much to ask for? Are you old enough to remember Hillary Clinton's first attempt at universal healthcare, and the reasons why it failed? (hint: it has to with her character) Anyhow, policy (outside of foreign policy) is of little relevance to me. I'd be solidly right-wing if I only vote on policy.

Change is about changing away from people like the Clintons. An upward change in the level of political discourse.

I hope you realize that I am not a liberal, and that you are trashing the very reasons I support Obama over McCain. John McCain, unlike Hillary Clinton, has actually run a very respectable campaign thus far. That speaks volumes about the man's character. Doubtlessly, conservative 527s will trash the Democratic nominee, but so will liberal 527 groups.

Yeah I remember Universal Health Care or whatever the fuck it was called and the big fiasco it was. Are people not able to revise their policies when the ones they originated don't succeed? Geesh, what kind of lazy attempt at an insult was that. I mean...

Anyway. Yes, I've read plenty of Obama speeches, listened to him on the TV, watched interviews, read comparisons, I've done a hell of a lot more research than most of my peers and again I fail to see where he has developed any sort of platform or given me any sort of reason to get me to vote for him other than it is "popular" and the media loves him.

As much as I would love to see a black president in the oval office, I'd rather have another 50 years of rich white men sitting there than 4 years of Obama.

Ever heard of Warren Harding? Yeah, that would be Obama. The Warren Harding effect could be renamed the Obama effect.

Read my edits above.

See, that's where the problem lies. It's not a matter of policy, it's a matter of character. Hillary was the know-it-all policy wonk that refused even to compromise with Democrats. Remember that Congress was controlled by Democrats in that year. So far as I observe, she has not stopped being a pompous know-it-all. Her inner wonk would face the hard edge of reality in office... again.

As for insults, my patience with this election is wearing thin. I have done my share of research (and concluded Clinton's claims of "experience" are vastly exaggerated), but Clinton supporters keep repeating the campaign boilerplate mantra of Obama "lacking specifics." It gets grating to the ears after a while; sorry if that is too much to handle. I can understand why Clinton supporters have such a hard time understanding what "change" means, because by dint of their own support, they express the belief that cynicism and politicking are good things. As such, I should cut some slack.

I don't see the Harding comparison. He won an electoral landslide promising "normalcy."

Alas, where's Ronald Reagan when you need him?