Obama says no more debates needed

This last debate showed how one sided and unfair the ABC Team stacked the cards agains Barack. One of the persons asking the questions was orginally in Presidents Clintons cabinet and was one of his major spokespersons. With this type of "gotcha" game playing, I don't blame Barack for not wanting to debate HRC. If they want a fair debate let's get some neutral people involved and ask the questions that the American people want to hear. In fact with the nastiness that HRC is displaying out of desparation or is this is her real personality, I feel most people of fair minds are sick of her anyway.

Obama is afraid of not doing well, he's carefully trying to avoid another debate that could expose his weaknesses, his inexperience, his contraversial background, some of his less than savoury connections, poor decisions, and the fact that he's not able to answer the questions and buckles under pressure. Everything is fine as long as the media lets him talk about the things he wants to talk about, but once he gets asked the same questions any candidate gets asked, he simply doesn't measure up. If he lacks this confidence in himself, America too will lack confidence in him. The media love affair is over. It's time we saw beneath the surface of Obama, and I believe, we won't like what we find when we peel back the veneer. It'll be too late on April 27, PA will have already voted and that's going to hurt him. Although, if you're Obama right now, and you've taken one hit by the media, and public alike, he's shown to be vulnerable, weak, lacking in confidence, poise or preparation, the media will be all over him to exploit that weak side. The other candidates have been asked these tough questions, but because Obama was the young, new kid on the block with no one knowing much about him at first, he avoided the tougher questions. Now that he's been exposed he's trying to prevent the public from finding more about his character, he's hiding, he's afraid to come under the magnifying glass so soon after this last debate. Two negative debates one right after the other would not be good for Obama, but neither is avoidance. Obama is a procrastinator, someone who hides who who he is, which is obvious when we got to witness some of his unsavory ties to people like Rezko that he lied about or denied knowing. Putting another debate off will show America that Obama can't take the heat, isn't well prepared, avoids the challenges, the tough questioning. It will tell the public he knows he's losing, and if he's lost this confidence in himself, so too will everyone else. America was getting tired of the media painting a saintly picture of Obama, when in reality, Obama was no saint. Obama had previously only answered candy coated questions; he needed to be able to answer questions of substance, as well as those wihtout. Presidents need to answer all types of questions; Obama couldn't do that, and he's wanting to dodge another debate.....I can understand why. He knows he's been found out. His ties to Rezko, Pastor wright who spews supremist propoganda, his lies about Nafta adn his expereience with Cocaine and inabiltiy now to debate and show leadership, Obama disappoints. Obama only seems to do well in a debate if it's very controlled, he follows Clinton rather than has to lead. He's not leadership material.

Of course he doesn't want any more debates. Now that the media finally has awakened and realized Obama isn't the messiah they are starting to ask real questions. My only complaint is why did it take so long? Obama never should have gotten this far. He is unelectable in the general, only the far left likes him. The rest of america is starting to actively hate the guy. He is a petulant, spoiled child who is clueless to american values and strengths. Hillary has her faults but we all know what they are and what to expect from her. She has been though the meat grinder and survived. Obama is going to be destroyed by the republicans. If Hillary loses I will have to vote for McCain. America can not afford to have Obama as President.

Obama should debate Clinton. That is Michelle Obama should debate Bill Clinton, and she too will kick his ass. How many times has Team Hillary moved the goal post? The Clinton Legacy? = Shame. Divisive. Sore Loser. Expectation of Entitlement. At this rate Hillary and her supporters will demand another debate after Obama is sworn in office for crissakes. Q. What do you call an official in the Bill Clinton Administration in 2008? An Obama Supporter. Connect the dots as to why. Hillary. Sit your ass down!

For the two comments regarding Senator Obama fear of debating Senator Clinton due to exposing weaknesses; the last time I checked, he has done excellently in many of these debates. The debacle on ABC had nothing to do with him or Senator Clinton. The debate was a disaster because of the two hosts. I agree with Senator Obama. I am certain that all of America has viewed at least 1 of those 21 debates by now; AND we are tired of them. I know where each candidate stands on these issues. These two candidates should continue on their stumps talking to the voters in the upcoming states and keep it moving. We will have plenty of debates ahead with the Republican nominee John McCain. Enough is Enough!

Reason keeps his feet on the ground, "If Hillary loses I will have to vote for McCain. America can not afford to have Obama as President." Current statistics indicate one in five democrats will vote for McCain rather than vote for Obama. Like you, I will vote McCain over Obama, much to my consternation; McCain is another Bush. Couple days back, day after the bitter debate, I began writing articles about Obama and taxes, specifically his dire display of ignorance on capital gains tax. The Wall Street Journal is beginning to catch up with me on this, albeit a couple days late. Here is a well written article appearing in today's Wall Street Journal discussing Obama telling a black lie, pun intended. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html Of course Obama is to refuse future debates, Obama cannot politically afford another debate; the media honeymoon is over. This last debate cost Obama dearly through catching him lying to America about a number of issues. Yes, Obama is a spoiled brat who thinks himself still attending Harvard and running for captain of the school newspaper. Obama is pitching a childish temper tantrum, "If you do not play this game my way, I will take my marbles and go home." Works for me, I do not like this idea of having taxes raised, especially doubling of capital gains tax because of ignorance on the part of a Harvard educated lawyer. Only true guarantee Obama is making to America is McCain will win the election because of Obama and his impetuous spoiled rich kid attitude. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

Why is there even a need for another debate, its a forgone conclusion that she won't be able to steal the nomination. And, for her supporters, vote for McCain, since, you were never a Democrat nor an Independant to begin with, just like HRC and her man, anyone but a black man, so, keep it real, its not about Hillary being one of the most polarizing people in he USA, its about your issues with the black man, and are happy with Bush like McCain and, are happy with Bush polices of $4 gas, the war in Iraq, and, all the other major issues that Bush has gotten the country in and McCain will keep it in. And, why "debate" if there are no relevant questions 45 minutes of issues that mean little does not equate a debate when the country has real issues. She has all but assured that McCain will win, since, in her mind, if not her, certainly not Obama. The hard questions should have been asked long before that debacle on ABC with the help of FOX news, and, guess what, the results would be he same, Hillary Clinton is not a person who could ever be elected to the White House, even with his flaws that he readily admits, Obama has a better chance than she ever would. her negatives are to high, and, her low class antics of running on the anything to win have shown, she has no character and cares only about what's best for her and her place in history not the country, and, after this horrible race baiting race she and her man have run, the joke will be on them in the end, win or lose, Obama has made history, and, that in itself is the only thing that matters, and, its a step towards the end of the fear of the black man in the USA, even with the silly gotcha questions.

I agree with Obama. This woman is now irrelevant. If they have debated 21 times and she is sinking to even further lows in the public's mind then what else could there possibly be to say? Does anyone here remember when Elizabeth Dole made an attempt to get the republican nomination and finally had to face reality? The questions asked to Obama the other night proves that white america now KNOWS they are going to have a black candidate running for president of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth and it might be too late to stop it. I also think that is why Bush is hell bent to leave the country in absolute shambles so that by this time next year everyone will be calling Obama incompetent and it is time to get rid of him. He had better have some DAMN GOOD ADVISORS AROUND HIM BECASUSE HE IS INHERITING A MESS THAT JUST MIGHT BE UNREPAIRABLE. (The war in Iraq, a nuclear armed Iran and what might be an uncontrollable Israel, who might not want to listen to the newly elected N word. Does it appear they listen to ANYTHING Condoleeza says?And to top it off an economy that is going nowhere but down). Good luck Barak. You will need it. AND STICK BUY YOUR GUNS. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO DEBATE.

Can someone please tell me what this ex-madame has done to propell her to such status. Other than write a few books and make an occasional appearance on the Oprah showwhat the hell else has she done? She has an honorary degree. She did not earn it the old fashion way. So who is she that her opinion actually matters?

I don't see the point to any more debates. I found the last few debates to be pointless and particularly the final one to be a disgrace. I kept waiting for them to talk about the issues. I couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Both Hillary and Obama have near identical policies. And all Hillary wants to do is fight not debate and I'm glad that Obama doesn't want to stoop to her level anymore. Hillary's supporters are just as mean an negative as she is. I guess you are who you support. Obama '08.

If the debates were still held by the non-partisan League of Women Voters and not networks who will pull out all the stops of sensationalism to get viewers, ratings and as many commercials for coins as possible, debates are good for the process. After this debacle on ABC which took 45 minutes to get to REAL questions that people want to hear answers to, no more and HRC is now moot anyway, all debates should be on PBS and with their moderators, not the ones like George S. with a bone to pick and obvious slant to Hillary, his former bosses wife, and, be in the Obama fanatics or the Cult of Hilary fans, they should stick with topics of relevance, not all the trash talk, and, certainly not questions from Fixed Noise. This ABC debate was like watching Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie ask a question, just awful.

"But here’s the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles." "This marks the third mistake for the Illinois senator. Not only does he not understand economics; not only is he set apart from middle-class values and beliefs; he apparently hasn’t read much history either." - Larry Kudlow, Economics Reporter, NRO http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTEwYWUxNjY0ZTJmNGY4NjAwYTM4NmJhNWMzZWYxNzc= Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

"In other words he dodged the question, as he so often does with impunity. But thanks to Mr. Gibson's persistence, for 90 minutes Wednesday night Mr. Obama didn't get away with it. The voters learned a lot about Mr. Obama, who needs to learn a lot more about taxes and revenue." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html Black America, you go right ahead and vote based upon skin color rather than upon issues and policies. Right off, Obama will raise your taxes reducing your income. Your monthly bills are skyrocketing, people are barely able to afford food for their families, cannot afford to buy gasoline, losing their homes, and Obama will raise your taxes. Not only will Obama take money from your families through higher salary taxes, Obama will also raid your retirement funds, raid your 401k and your IRA accounts. More middle class Americans will be driven into poverty, those already living at poverty level will be worse off, and the rich will become more wealthy. So, yes, vote skin color rather than vote what is best for all Americans, regardless of skin color. Vote for Obama simply because he is black, vote for Obama because he will take food off your family's table, take your food to give to the rich, like himself. I will vote McCain over Obama simply to protect Americans from having their money taken away by Obama and his higher taxes. I do not care for McCain with his being another Bush, but I would rather have McCain in charge than have Obama take food right out of the mouths of our American children. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

Vote for McCain, he will need it since people with a clue won't vote for him, people who want change and not the old same, tripe will go with him. Food out of the mouths of American children, just how foolish is that when jobs are fleeing this country left and right and, the trillion dollar deficit is growing by the minute with folks like McCain who like Bush are always screaming tax cuts, this is one of the most illiterate voting countries on the planet, never have the sense to do research, just go with what they hear on TV, and, then trot from board to board with the nonsense, amazing. And, those same kids have no health care, horrible schools and parents living check to check, losing homes due to the tax bailout of crooked banks thanks to tax cuts, yeah, vote for McCain and the rest of the rich like his wife who is worth over $100 million. But, since this is cyberspace, its easy to weed out the trolls from people who actually follow politics and care about the country. Why do these trolls flock to boards that aren't right wing FOX News based? Do they think someone will take them for anythin than a bad joke? Internet like cell phones, good and bad, and, mostly bad with cyber cowards who spew nonsense.

surprise surprise another hate filled blog. Isn't it interesting how these blogs do nothing but spew hatred for any one of the 3 candidates. For those that complaign about not discussing issues here's a novel idea why not do it on a blog. There are a few examples here but as usual not many. If this comment offends you then i'm sure you know that it's YOU i'm talking about, and don't bother posting a reply i have no intentions of returning to this blog since..... yet again you have to sift through a steady stream of ignorant incoherent hate spew in order to finda single thought out comment. Enjoy your hate filled lives.

www.andwearenotsaved.blogspot.com ABC News' debate on Wednesday was the best of all the 20 debates. For once Sen. Barack Obama was asked hard questions, as was Sen. Hillary Clinton. The problem is he couldn't answer though he has had three months of avoiding these questions and could have prepared an answer. He thought I guess the media wouldn't challenge him on these topics, as they hadn't in the past so he wasn't prepared. Now is he crying foul play. When Hillary mentioned that she was being served with tough questions unrelated to the race and questioned about everything she and husband had ever done, she was told to suck it up. Now the shoes have been dropped on the other feet and who's crying now?

Remember, don't feed the trolls, they thrive on negativity, and, are to be pitied and nothing else. Pray for them and, that foolishness they type, since, they are only here to crave attention and not discuss anything in a rational manner. Oh yeah, RJ, I was hoping they would have asked her hard questions, like perhaps Vince Foster and Monica Lewisnky since they were so intent on dealing with the past and none of the current issues that are important, or her and her husband using racially tinged code words to whites and Hispanics to fear the black man, or her bald face lie about Bosina, but, alas, those "serious" questions never came up, no suprise there. But, with the one guy being her husbands former employee and the other one just as out of touch as can be, it was bound to be FOX News questions, and, in the end, the joke was on ABC.

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows that Hillary Clinton now receives 46% of the support of Democrats nationally, compared to 45% for Barack Obama, marking the first time Obama has not led in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20." General Election, Clinton: 46% McCain: 44% Obama: 45% McCain: 44% http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

Obama refuses to pay his campaign workers. http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PeterJWirs/2008/04/17/obama_commits_political_suicide_one_week_prior_to_the_pennsylvania_primary Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

And HRC is being sued for the rent she didn't pay for the halls at the universities she held rallies in California, so, yet a another boring pint of view from the peanut gallery who only thrive on bitterness and negativity becuse the public ses right through them and her, yawn.

Bob Herbert of the NY Times has a great article on why the Democrats are probably not going to win in November and how both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are to blame: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/opinion/19herbert.html?ex=1209268800&en=f3becb293ace3646&ei=5070

Well, since that's a site that requires cookies and a sign up to read the article, I'll just place the blame on HRC since, no need to sign up to read it since, this is the same guy who praised ABC/FOX News's last "debate." The country may as well just end this whole elction charade and say McCain has won, now its yet another waste of tax payers dollars.

Communist Pravda endorses Obama http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/18-04-2008/104958-obamaprevails-0 Besides the republican party urging followers to vote for Obama in the primaries, Russia is now endorsing Obama. I will be researching other nations which are not friendly to America to discover other political leanings. An Islamic terrorist organization, Hamas, has endorsed Obama. Ahmed Yousuf, chief political advisor for Hamas, states, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections...." My feeling is the republican party, Russia, Hamas, perhaps others unfriendly to America, want Obama to win the nomination so McCain will win the general election. McCain represents a continuation of Bush policies which will lead to further degrading of America and further loss of world power by America; our America will no longer be the number one world power. I sincerely question if Obama is the best choice for democrats; there are subtle dangers not readily apparent to our American public. Clinton can defeat McCain. Rather doubtful Obama can defeat McCain. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

And, to keep it real on "endorsements," just look at who wants HRC to 'win...." Vast right-wing conspiracy" leader's paper backs Clinton (04-20) 08:54 PDT PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Could it be the "vast right wing conspiracy" is having second thoughts? Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Sunday by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, whose owner and publisher, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, personally funded many of the investigations that led to President Clinton's impeachment in 1998. It was one of a handful of endorsements the New York senator has received from Pennsylvania newspapers before the state's primary Tuesday. Most of the state's major papers have endorsed Barack Obama. In its endorsement, Tribune-Review editors said Obama is too inexperienced to be president and that his recent comments about bitter voters living in small towns showed a lack of respect for middle-class values. "In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government — as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right," the paper said. "She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder." Clinton met with the Tribune-Review's editorial board, including Scaife, last month. Afterward, Scaife wrote an editorial titled "Hillary, Reassessed," declaring how impressed he had been by the former first lady. "Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her," Scaife wrote. In the 1990s, Scaife helped support conservative groups and publications investigating Bill Clinton's financial dealings and sex life. Scaife spent $2.3 million to fund a series of articles by The American Spectator magazine that dug into Bill Clinton's behavior as governor of Arkansas. The magazine reported that Clinton had asked state troopers to help procure women for him and that he had sexually harassed a state worker named Paula Jones. Jones's legal case against Clinton helped launch an independent counsel investigation that eventually exposed his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton famously defended her husband at the time, saying the allegations were part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" heavily funded by Scaife.

Iran media backhand endorsement of Obama http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=52420§ionid=3510203 State controlled Iranian media displays less than subtle support for Obama. This is disturbing. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

You left out the Chocta-whine nation and who they are endorsing, yawn at this foolishness. Your rants will not change a thing, just like these insipid posts, go Obama and anyone but HRC! Must be quite lonely in that tepee to only post on this board about how wonderful and saintly HRC is, which is really the most disrtbing thing of all, that woman in the White House, the end of democray as we know it.

This Obama fever is both contagious and fatal. Rather tragic so many have succumbed to Obama razzle-dazzle with their wearing reality blocking Rose Colored Glasses. Obama offers a message of desired change but does not offer meat and potatoes as does Clinton. This is Obama in Wonderland. Obama only needs now to click his heels three times then wish, "I want to go home to the White House." Obama does not offer viable long term solutions to America's problem nor to our world's problems. As many say, Obama is a flash in the pan. A majority of Americans are fat. A majority of Americans are lazy. A majority of Americans want their cake and eat it too. Obama is the cake of senseless dreams of an easy life. Clinton is the meat and potatoes of a hard earned living. Victims of Obama Fever see only Easy Street being guided by promising directions of Obama. Without those Rose Colored Glasses, easy enough to clearly see Obama is leading his ill to Skid Row, Los Angeles. Clinton offers America hard work. She proposes we all roll up our sleeves and get to work. Her plans and policies call upon all Americans to get off their butts and help work to solve our country's problems. Clinton does not offer easy solutions, Clinton does not offer cake to fat lazy Americans. Clinton offers a chance for America, a chance which must be earned through hard work by all Americans, including the majority fat and lazy. What these fat lazy Americans wearing Rose Colored Glasses cannot see is the republican party will rip apart Obama with ease. Obama cannot defeat McCain and America will suffer a George Bush clone for, at least, another four years. Clinton cannot be ripped apart by the republican party; she has already been ripped. I am an Oklahoma farm girl, a red skinned farm girl, who was literally born on our farm, delivered by a "Chahta ohoyo alla eshi apistikeli", a Choctaw midwife who delivered me penniless and ignorant, who delivered me to a harsh life of farming. Two decades later, the daughter of my Choctaw midwife delivered our daughter, on our same farm, on our same bed, but our girl was not born penniless like her parents. Our family knows the value of dedication to hard work for betterment of our small tribe. We are successful today because we have devoted our lives to hard work and advancement. None of us within our small tribe are fat and certainly none of us are lazy. Those blindly supporting this whimsical dream of Obama will continue to lead mediocre lives, will continue to be fat and lazy, will continue to dream but never lift a finger to realize their dreams. Obama offers idealism void of actuality. Clinton offers reality and hard work. My preference is hard work and callused hands. I know hard work produces results and produces great pride. Clinton offers us hard work and results. Obama offers a dream soon to be forgotten. McCain will defeat Obama. Fat and lazy Obama Fever suffers will continue to feel our government's enslaving whip upon their backs. Our small family tribe will not feel the sting of our government's whip; we have freed ourselves through a lifetime of hard work. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

Readers, don't feed the trolls, that girl is just another troll with way too much time on his or her hands. Obama 08, anybody but another race baitng Clinton and thier racist supporters. Hard work, what, through casino revenue, save that racist tripe for your next pow wow, black people work too, so, the joke as usual is on you with your racial slurs, must be the half "white" side of you typing those long winded rants.

A small handful of participants at this web site remind me of the Jefferson High School race riots. All should read this article, http://www.latimes.com/la-me-jefferson6jul06,0,431133,full.story During this long lasting race riot, a mother addresses a crowd of students, parents, administrators, local politicians, news media and many others. She says, "You shouldn't be fighting each other. You should be getting together and taking the fight to whitey." Quite the mother, she is, promoting violence amongst our children and promoting racism amongst our children. During my teaching career, I encountered this type of behavior a few times, encountered parents actively encouraging their children to engage in violence. I was even physically assaulted by a father who was cheering on his eleven year old daughter while she fought another girl. He assaulted me when I tried to stop this fighting. Violence and racism is not inherited, is not inborn, is not genetically wired. Violence and racism is taught by parents to their children. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120846056666123713-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI4MDQyNjAwWj.html On Tuesday Hillary Clinton made the best speech of her campaign. She told the American Society of Newspaper Editors how she conceives "the power and promise of the presidency." She asserted that President Bush had been "unready" for the office, did not understand its "constitutional character," exhibited in his decisions an "ideological disdain." She said she hopes to "restore balance and purpose" to the presidency, and detailed specific actions she would take immediately on entering the White House. It was an important speech, and someone, probably many someones, worked hard on it. It was highly partisan, even polar, but it was a more thoughtful critique of the administration, more densely woven and less bromidic, than she has offered in the past, and she used a higher vocabulary. So eager was she to be heard she actually noted at one point that what she'd just said was not "a soundbite." And here's the thing. It didn't matter. Nobody noticed. A room full of journalists didn't notice this was something new and interesting. And they didn't notice because nobody is listening anymore. Mrs. Clinton is transmitting, but people aren't receiving. She has been branded, tagged. She's been absorbed, understood and categorized. People have decided what they think, and it's not good. It took George W. Bush five years to get to that point. It took her five intense months. Political historians will say her campaign sank with the mad Bosnia lie, but Bosnia broke through only because it expressed, crystallized, what people had already begun to think: too much mendacity there, too much manipulation. Timing is everything. "Too late to get serious," I wrote in my notes. For before this, Mrs. Clinton's campaign was all dreary recitation of talking points, rote applause lines followed by rote applause.

I've said it before, and I will say it again.

The skills necessary to do well in a campaign are not the same as the skills required to do a good job in office. To campaign well, one has to be able to answer any question instantly and confidently, with no time to think. To do a good job in office, we don't want decisions to be made without adequate thought, planning, and consultation. Rather, one has to have the ability to select good assistants and advisors who specialize in various fields, including banking, economics, welfare issues, general foreign policy, thorough knowledge of specific countries, etc. etc. It simply is not possible for any one person to have all the knowledge to deal adequately with all aspects of government.

When one aspect of government becomes particularly important, then the president should have his assistants and advisors provide him with the necessary information to understand the issues thoroughly and present him with options. One of the problems with George II is that he hasn't done that. Instead, he's made snap decisions and refused to listen to or consider other viewpoints, a problem which is unlikely to show up in a political campaign.

In private business and industry, the various officers, including the CEO, are not expected to know everything. Instead, they choose competent subordinates who carry out the necessary functions and keep their superiors informed. The same should be true in government.

Who one's pastor, priest, minister, rabbi, imam, pundit, etc. etc. is is not of over-riding importance. No thinking member of a religious organization will agree with everything said by the leaders. For example, a few months ago, in the Episcopal parish of which I am a member, they paraded a statue of St. Mary around the church and actually said a "hail Mary." Although I was shaken by it and plan to be absent any time they choose to do that again, it will not cause me to change my membership. Likewise, the fact that Senator Obama's pastor made statements which we quite rightly regard as inappropriate should not be held against Obama and it makes no sense that he is asked about that over and over again, ad nausium.

Some of the attacks against Obama are just plain stupid. He's even been attacked for not wearing a pin of the American flag. That reminds me of the 1970s when flag stickers were on everything, even including garbage cans, because people were afraid of being considered unpatriotic if they failed to display the flag in every conceivable place. Obvioulsy anyone can display symbols; they mean little.

Some people have valid reasons for prefering another candidate. However, some of the things said against Obama are just plain silly and indicate an inability of people to think clearly and rationally.

FRE, you are making way too much sense, is that allowed here?

Here is a great article on why Black America needs Tavis Smiley more than Barack Obama right now: http://sethandray.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/black-america-needs-tavis-smiley-more-than-barack-obama-right-now-by-donnell-jackson/

Purl Gurl, Why don't you shut up. This is a critical time for America and we need a good leader. If you know so dam much, why don't you run for president. You just a jealous azz hater. Hillary does not have the delegates, the money or the popular vote. Too bad. Maybe next time. Deal with it Sista!!!

Both Clinton and the governor of Oregon have challenged Obama to two debates. Should Obama refuse to debate, he will truly prove himself a sissy boy. Ted Kulongoski, governor of Oregon, writes in email, in part, "...Oregonians will make a decision which will impact the rest of our lives. The stakes cannot be higher, which is why I am standing with Hillary Clinton's challenge to hold two presidential debates - one on rural issues - right here in Oregon...Join me in signing a petition calling for two presidential debates in Oregon...www.debateoregon.com...." http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2008/04/clintonbacking_or_governor_cal.html Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

I think that debates are over-valued.

The skill required to debate successfully is not the same as the skill required to do any job well, except debate. The winner of a debate is not always right either. Many years ago, when I was a member of Toastmasters, we had a debate. There were 2 teams, with 2 on each team. I was assigned a position with which I disagreed, and yet my partner and I won. We did so not by being right, but by being more clever than our opponents and by thinking quickly. When our opponents made a statement, we cleverly twisted it to mean something which they did not intend. Our opponents were unable to think quickly enough to deal with it.

For president, it's important to choose a person who will not make decisions too quickly, but rather, will consider all available facts, consider options, and consult with others. All this must be done to make the best possible decision. On the other hand, to win a debate, one must be able to think quickly, confuse one's opponent, and make assertions which require some time and thought to refute.

A written debate could have some value; it would provide the participants with sufficient time to think clearly about what the opponent wrote and gather the facts to deal with it.

Thank you FRE for your excellent input on this topic, something not found too often in this awful, give it to McCain at any expense elcetion.