You start by calling her "Cyber-hater" and end your (drunken?) tirade with this: You will never be able to crawl out of the cesspit you were born and reside.

It sure doesn't take much of a look to see who's doing the hating here, now does it? IMO, the mods should be on you for that comment, inferring what she was born of. Beyond that, believe me, you are no asset to BO's campaign with that crap.

__________________
Want government run healthcare? Join the military.

What is being exposed, is merely a form of religious bigotry.

Why is there any shade of religious test being advocated by people who claim to be Americans, who support a Constitution that denies and disparages the right to religious tests for federal office?

Christians seem to prefer ignoring those facts. One candidate is a religious leader and there hasn't been any name calling regarding his status. Bigotry is the only explanation.

What I haven't seen, is any real discussion of party or candidate platforms. I would like to be able to discuss the merits of each candidate's platform to be better informed, as a member of the electorate.

Normally doesn't transpire, identifying the actual campaign planks, until the home stretch. If the economy goes belly up, we could hear something sooner.

Aren't the candidates of each party attempting to gather support from its fringe elements before going mainstream in the general election? It would be interesting to know what those platforms are before going in to the general election since each party has its own inertia.

Well, perhaps - but that isn't really the point here, is it?

Obama is not a Muslim. He has made that clear. But the photo presents a visual association that is startling.

Is that fair? Of course not. Is it reasonable? Only partly. But the response opeates partly beneath the conscious level.

The point is that the photo has a powerful subliminal negative impact. The Clintons are not fools. They are shrewd, cunning and brilliant when it comes to attacking an opponent. Nobody does it better - NOBODY.

This will now be the major story for several days and the photo will be reproduced all over the world, even by Obama's strongest supporters.

This is coming at the same time as Farrakhan's lavish praise of Obama.

Did Obama ask for this? It is reasonable to assume he did NOT. Does he want it? I would doubt it. But it happened nevertheless.

Obama has had great success separating himself from the radical left. That is a major part of his appeal. If Clinton can create those associations with radicalism and make them stick - even with some voters - she may win.

Obama's supporters are expressing disgust and contempt. I am not an Obama supporter, but I fully agree: it is disgusting and contemptible.

But it is a very powerful image. The Clintons wrote the playbook for American political attacks.

It depends on what you mean by negative impact. Why should someone dressing in ethnic garb be considered negative?

What does how someone dresses have to do with a rational discussion of candidates and their platform for governing the Union?

That is a fair and reasonable response, and I full agree. But this is political season. Since when does rationality have anything to do with it?

As for your first question: are you kidding?

I can't think of how many times I have seen politicians in silly photos taken abroad when visiting other countries and cultures. The sad thing is that paranoid and xenophobic elements within our culture let this sort of thing rule their votes rather than that looking at qualifications and stances on substantive issues

Pictures are indeed worth 1,000 words, as they say.

You'd think they'd learn from that Dukakis in the tank debacle.

So smear should make politicians afraid of being diplomatic now? The problem does not lie with Obama.

I think a well informed electorate is not an irrational electorate.

How does your view account for this position, in a document that purports to be the supreme law of the land?

From Article 6:

WHat has this got to do with the discussion?

Does anyone want to actually discuss forms of potential public policy?

From one perspective of a unitary executive (theory), a CEO of the Union could simply require that a segment of new vehicles purchased by the executive branch be alternative fuel capable.

Which candidate would be most amenable to environmental initiatives by relatively simple mechanisms?