Voters should scrutinize the personal choices of a candidate which can influence his perception of the world and events taking place in the world. Andrew C. McCarthy wrote "The Company He Keeps" in the 4/11/2008 edition of 'National Review Online.' The relationships discussed in the article can have a profound impact on how Barack Obama perceives the world and world events. The following are excerpts from the article: Why is Barack Obama so comfortable around people who so despise America and its allies? Maybe it's because they're so comfortable around him. He presents as the transcendent agent of "change." Sounds platitudinous, but it's really quite strategically vaporous. Sen. Obama is loath to get into the details of how we should change, and, as the media's Chosen One, he hasn't had to... ...So, instead, we get glimpses. The most profound influence in his life, his wife Michelle, is notoriously less circumspect than her careful husband about where she's coming from. Her college thesis, which Princeton tried to keep under lock and key, testifies to a race-obsessed worldview. She may have refined it, but she's never grown out of it... ...Years earlier, the Obamas had gravitated to the baleful Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an unapologetic racist and hard Left firebrand. They were comfortable with him - and he with them... ...Rev. Wright inspired his congregation - of which the Obamas were 20 year members - with "black liberation theology." ...James Cone, author of 'Black Theology and Black Power'... What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors...Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. ...It is this same drive for upheaval, for supplanting a political order which purportedly treats blacks as "less than human," that impelled Wright's plea for God to "damn America." In the oppression narrative, the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11 isn't terrorism but social justice. America, after all, had it coming. For Wright, it was "chickens coming home to roost."... ...is it really all that startling that Sen. Obama enjoys a friendly relationship with Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, a pair of terrorists? I want to be clear here: Not terrorist sympathizers. Terrorists. ...Ayers didn't just carry a sign outside the Pentagon on May 19, 1972. He bombed it. As his memoir gleefully recalled,"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."... ...Ayers and Dohrn have done the actual dirty work of terror, while Jeremiah Wright draws the line at waving pom-poms. But the prism through which they assay the dirty work is precisely the same: America has it coming... ...In the interim, Ayers and Obama had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a long time supporter of Palestinian "resistance" attacks against Israel, which he openly regards as a racist, apartheid state... There is considerably more information in the complete article. We are known by the company we keep. Andrew C. McCarthy has provided valuable insight into Barack Obama's personal relationships. An easy way to read Andrew C. McCarthy's article in its entirety is to go to: http://www.nationalreview.com/ Then, scroll down to the Recent Articles section in order to find "The Company He Keeps" on 4/11/2008. Has Barack Obama exercised good judgment in his personal relationships? Remember the dissembling of information concerning Obama's relationship with the indicted businessman, Tony Rezko. Obama initially said he had only done a few hours of legal work for Tony Rezko. As more details were revealed, Obama continually revised his story to appease the people asking questions. We now know he had a 17 year relationship with Rezko. Rezko was instrumental in helping Obama receive approximately a $300,000 reduction in the purchase price of his home in Chicago. What did Rezko expect in return for the $300,000 discount? Why did Barack Obama choose a spiritual adviser/mentor who taught the Anti-White Ideology of Black Liberation Theology? Why did Obama listen to the Anti-White Ideology of Black Liberation Theology for 20 years and give significant amounts of money to support the preaching of the Anti-White Ideology? Why didn't Obama denounce Rev. Wright when he authorized the publishing of the 'Hamas Terror Manifesto' in the 7/22/2007 Bulletin of Trinity United Church of Christ? Jewish voters and many other voters would like Obama to answer those questions. Voters deserve answers to those questions. If the MSM had vetted Barack Obama 4 months ago, Hillary could have clinched the nomination on Super Tuesday. When voters learn that Obama's actions contradict his rhetoric, his support will plummet. Someone did what the MSM would not do - vetted Barack Obama. I think the 'Audacity of Hypocrisy' web site went online on 4/2/2008. Visit the web site Barack Obama does not want voters to read. Why is Barack Obama unelectable in the general election? Learn why at: http://www.AudacityofHypocrisy.com/ Hillary has been endorsed by 34 Retired Admirals and Generals (including 2 former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). These are men and women who risked their lives to defend our country. They rose to positions of prominence in the military because of their courage, valor, and excellent judgment. They have said that Hillary is the best candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief. Watch the video at: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/149.aspx How many Retired Admirals and Generals are currently endorsing Barack Obama to be our next President? The answer to that question demonstrates that he is unelectable in the general election. Why do so few older Americans (age 60 and above) support Barack Obama? They have done some research on him. They have learned that Obama's actions contradict his rhetoric. Someone said that when a person does some research on Obama, he learns that Obama "has more baggage than a cargo ship." Barack Obama cannot beat John McCain in the general election. Hillary can beat John McCain. Hillary in 2008! Jim and Sandy Boyd Phoenix, AZ

The senior citizens that spam this board in support of Hillary really need to stop; the article has shown Penn students do not support her. There is no feasible way she can win the nomination without destroying the Party, which she seems all too eager to do. I don't mind if she runs until the end, but she should aim her attacks at John McCain and not her fellow Democrat. Her continuous and relentless negative attacks against Sen. Obama have ostracized huge blocks of his supporters who will NEVER vote for her if she is able to steal the nomination from him.

College students--many of whom don't pay taxes, don't have families, don't have to provide for themselves, and who have an idealistic view of geopolitics--are a small subsection of the voting population, especially when you're looking only at a few colleges in one state. Assuming Obama wins the nomination, he's still gotta win over the rest of the country, who will likely view him as inexperienced (3 yrs in the Senate?!) and too closely affiliated with the Black supremacist wing of the African-American community. McCain may have the "evil" Republican label, but he's moderate, honest, and very well-prepared for office.

The Clintons succeeded by aping Republican tactics and are still at it. Hillary is speaking in code to the white working class. She is stoking their resentment and fears. Obama knows he can't win w/o at least some of their votes so he too threw them a bone like anti-trade. We know it's bad to take advantage of the work of others in the world and perhaps offer them some of our own talents. Of course, only their own are entitled to have jobs and not minorities or people in other countries. Hillary may be the first woman with a shot at the presidency. But what kind of victory is it for women when the first one got there because of her husband? And she can still win because even the racists have mothers.

[QUOTE id="eb62e21d-a2a9-4fd4-ab2c-9c9448cc96d9"]Having lots of uninformed people vote is not especially inspiring, however good it makes the ignorant, yet participating, voter feel. Lots of students are for Obama, based upon the word "change," some hearsay, perhaps a brush with a soundbite, and his skin color. Nearly all who attended the debate and were polled afterwards agreed that Clinton was transparently superior, demonstrating her clear command of the facts, her vision, supported by a plan, and her presence. She is articulate, quick on her feet, engaging, direct. He is vague, inexperienced, and shaky. The Republicans want him to be their opponent, for they are going to eat him for breakfast. A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. It's sad and increasingly frightening to see how easy it is to manipulate Americans, even Penn students, who should be a little smarter and more inquiring than the average.[/QUOTE] So when Barack Obama points out that people in middle-America are bitter about the bs of the Bush years, he is an elitist? When Clinton supporters say half of all democrats are uninformed because they support Barack Obama, they are being realists? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[QUOTE id="eb62e21d-a2a9-4fd4-ab2c-9c9448cc96d9"]Having lots of uninformed people vote is not especially inspiring, however good it makes the ignorant, yet participating, voter feel. Lots of students are for Obama, based upon the word "change," some hearsay, perhaps a brush with a soundbite, and his skin color. Nearly all who attended the debate and were polled afterwards agreed that Clinton was transparently superior, demonstrating her clear command of the facts, her vision, supported by a plan, and her presence. She is articulate, quick on her feet, engaging, direct. He is vague, inexperienced, and shaky. The Republicans want him to be their opponent, for they are going to eat him for breakfast. A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. It's sad and increasingly frightening to see how easy it is to manipulate Americans, even Penn students, who should be a little smarter and more inquiring than the average.[/QUOTE] What silly comments. They show no thought whatsoever, but rather simply pump out Clinton spindoctor "points". A "vote for Bush" you say? May I bring it to your attention he is not/cannot run in this election. You may have missed that. Interesting how you seem to dismiss the students as unable to make rationale well founded decisions. From their postings, it seems to me they are well ahead of your level of analysis. To me, Hillary sounds hackneyed, and tired as opposed to "quick on her feet", and it is Obama who connects with me, not Hillary, especially when she out and out fabricates stories like being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Finally, the Republicans would love to face off with Hillary, as they know the Clintons are very polarizing figures, primarily thanks to her husband. By the way, I am a card carrying "geezer" (63) and I pay attention to facts, not spin.

[QUOTE id="a85a45ba-0d59-42ea-b1d5-ccc5fd107bd2"]College students--many of whom don't pay taxes, don't have families, don't have to provide for themselves, and who have an idealistic view of geopolitics--are a small subsection of the voting population, especially when you're looking only at a few colleges in one state. Assuming Obama wins the nomination, he's still gotta win over the rest of the country, who will likely view him as inexperienced (3 yrs in the Senate?!) and too closely affiliated with the Black supremacist wing of the African-American community. McCain may have the "evil" Republican label, but he's moderate, honest, and very well-prepared for office.[/QUOTE] Excuse me, but I am not a pot smoker or a slacker, I pay taxes and I am working my way though college with the help of financial aid. I take offense to those who lump college students together as naive lazy bums who drink and party but don't work hard or understand the real world, and to those who assume that young Obama supporters are just clinging to his message and not his policy ideas. Why in this day and age does Hope=naivetŽ? Why can't we clamor for change and something else than the status quo? because I can tell you, the status quo is not something worth keeping. please remember that there are smart, informed people backing Obama, not just crazed cult-like vapid followers. Just like there are ignorant, jaded, and frightened people backing Clinton and McCain ..not that I'm implying you are one of them....

[QUOTE id="a85a45ba-0d59-42ea-b1d5-ccc5fd107bd2"]College students--many of whom don't pay taxes, don't have families, don't have to provide for themselves, and who have an idealistic view of geopolitics--are a small subsection of the voting population, especially when you're looking only at a few colleges in one state. Assuming Obama wins the nomination, he's still gotta win over the rest of the country, who will likely view him as inexperienced (3 yrs in the Senate?!) and too closely affiliated with the Black supremacist wing of the African-American community. McCain may have the "evil" Republican label, but he's moderate, honest, and very well-prepared for office.[/QUOTE] Have you taken a look at McCain's record or positions? Other than his positions on torture and immigration, his platform is very conservative.

As a lazy, pot-smoking, Greek system member here at Penn, I can assure you my vote will be going to Barack Obama. Why? Because like most other people my age, I am ignorant, follow what others choose to follow, and obsessed with whatever will make me seem cool. Obama did drugs in college, and so do I, so the choice is clear. Obama is black, too, which gives him street cred. I could never chill at my frat house with Hillary...there's no way she would ever make it into Tabard or Theta. For once in my life, those GDIs and I agree on something! Barack the vote!

[QUOTE id="579abcf1-1a78-45c0-bd92-6a0f0bc2e01b"]The senior citizens that spam this board in support of Hillary really need to stop; the article has shown Penn students do not support her. There is no feasible way she can win the nomination without destroying the Party, which she seems all too eager to do. I don't mind if she runs until the end, but she should aim her attacks at John McCain and not her fellow Democrat. Her continuous and relentless negative attacks against Sen. Obama have ostracized huge blocks of his supporters who will NEVER vote for her if she is able to steal the nomination from him.[/QUOTE] Well, actually the only way Obama could win (and the route he chose to take) was to destroy the party. See, e.g. South Carolina. The only way Obama could overtake the support Hillary had across the country was to exploit Republican-based criticisms against her and come up with his own (basically strongly implying that she was a racist and that she's evil, etc.). From that moment on, Obama and his supporters have ostracized a substantial part of the Democratic party--Hillary Clinton supporters. His tactics continues today. Notice how he lumps the Bill Clinton (who many Democrats like) presidency in with the problems of the Bush administration? It's one thing to criticize Bill Clinton for "old politics" but that's not what he's doing. He's attacking him based on economics, etc. You, and not Senator Clinton, are driving this party apart. No Clinton supporter can stand Obama supporters. They are so closed- and high-minded it's ridiculous. The Penn Dems supported a primary candidate in a hotly contested election, knowing that at least 30% of their membership wanted the other person. What did the majority (the Obama supporters) do? Encourage the candidates to be nice to each other? No--they decided it was worth breaking the Penn Dems up. That's not Hillary--that's Obama and his supporters.

[QUOTE id="a85a45ba-0d59-42ea-b1d5-ccc5fd107bd2"]College students--many of whom don't pay taxes, don't have families, don't have to provide for themselves, and who have an idealistic view of geopolitics--are a small subsection of the voting population, especially when you're looking only at a few colleges in one state. Assuming Obama wins the nomination, he's still gotta win over the rest of the country, who will likely view him as inexperienced (3 yrs in the Senate?!) and too closely affiliated with the Black supremacist wing of the African-American community. McCain may have the "evil" Republican label, but he's moderate, honest, and very well-prepared for office.[/QUOTE] It's the fact that you really want change when all you know is the past 7-8 years. It's that you think Obama is change because he says he is, and he says he is very eloquently. It's that you think only Obama is a change. Was it a change from the status quo when the country went from Clinton to Bush? Yes. Would it be change if it went from Bush to McCain? Yes. Bush to Clinton? Heck yes! It's the impression that most college students are impressionable and let celebrity win out. Take, e.g., Obama's so-called ability to reach across the isle and unite dems and republicans. Who has been doing that in the senate more than him? A lot, but I'll name 2: Clinton and McCain. Yet Obama is popular; he's fresh and exciting and has a movement that some republicans are joining--but he has no history of working together across party lines, but his celebrity thinks he does.

On TV they said that this was the most important Pennsylvania Primary election ever. With the closeness of this primary, it is generating more interest in voting in elections. There is a good chance that this election will determine if we have the first black or female president ever.

Having lots of uninformed people vote is not especially inspiring, however good it makes the ignorant, yet participating, voter feel. Lots of students are for Obama, based upon the word "change," some hearsay, perhaps a brush with a soundbite, and his skin color. Nearly all who attended the debate and were polled afterwards agreed that Clinton was transparently superior, demonstrating her clear command of the facts, her vision, supported by a plan, and her presence. She is articulate, quick on her feet, engaging, direct. He is vague, inexperienced, and shaky. The Republicans want him to be their opponent, for they are going to eat him for breakfast. A vote for Obama is a vote for Bush. It's sad and increasingly frightening to see how easy it is to manipulate Americans, even Penn students, who should be a little smarter and more inquiring than the average.

[QUOTE id="78afcd2a-94c6-4e27-8ed6-8454afba644b"]The Clintons succeeded by aping Republican tactics and are still at it. Hillary is speaking in code to the white working class. She is stoking their resentment and fears. Obama knows he can't win w/o at least some of their votes so he too threw them a bone like anti-trade. We know it's bad to take advantage of the work of others in the world and perhaps offer them some of our own talents. Of course, only their own are entitled to have jobs and not minorities or people in other countries. Hillary may be the first woman with a shot at the presidency. But what kind of victory is it for women when the first one got there because of her husband? And she can still win because even the racists have mothers.[/QUOTE] Wow, you just threw a verbal grenade into the pot with "what kind of victory..." Talk about sexism! She got to where she is today by many years of hard work, but no matter if her name was Susie Q. no matter how hard women try they must work double the time to prove themselves capable. Senator Clinton is the focus here, not her huband, and it is my opinion that she will be worthwhile president from day one.

[QUOTE id="eb62e21d-a2a9-4fd4-ab2c-9c9448cc96d9"]Having lots of uninformed people vote is not especially inspiring, however good it makes the ignorant, yet participating, voter feel. Lots of students are for Obama, based upon the word "change," some hearsay, perhaps a brush with a soundbite, and his skin color...[/QUOTE] Except that the actual facts show that Obama supporters skew well-educated and well-informed not to mention less focused on skin color. If "just words" could cause the response Obama is getting, everyone who can speak would have a shot at getting the same response that Obama does. It's not "just words". Obama is inspiring, yes, but he's also running a new kind of political campaign, one based on real - not pretend - grassroots engagement. It's a campaign that a lot of Hillary supporters seem to have trouble understanding - "What's this guy's trick?". Here's the trick: He means it. The argument for Obama is ultimately very pragmatic: Because people are responding to his new politics, he is building a bigger majority. A bigger majority means things will happen in Washington. Congress is not stalled because it wants to be stalled, it's stalled because there hasn't been a strong enough mandate in one direction. That will change under President Obama. And that's what the word "change" means.

I can't believe so-called informed people are voting for Clinton. If anyone wants to see Obama provide details, they can just look at the prophetic nature of the warning he gave about the Iraq war before invading, at www.barackobama.com/judgment. Since then Hillary has tried to make it seem that he didn't really oppose it, and gave nothing but a speech, but if you search for his "barack obama opposition from the start" video on Youtube, you see him opposing the war on several tv shows, you see him stating that yes if we do invade we'll need to make sure it's well funded (and then Hillary spins this into "he voted for funding, so he doesn't really oppose it"). The only > 1 million subscriber newspaper that endorsed Hillary was the new york times. Why? Well the new republic wrote a story on how the editorial board was leaning towards Obama, yet their corporate chief, who is gym buddies with Clinton's chief fundraiser, and who didn't bother to attend one Obama interview and left the other one early, said they should endorse Hillary. There is an information gap. The young people who watch clips for themselves on YouTube, use sources other than CNN and the New York Times, know what the hell they're doing. Hillary Clinton is a liar and a fraud. She has less legislative experience than Obama, but she's supposed to be more experienced than him because she was married to the president? Although her records indicate that she wasn't present during most crises? Although they show that after her disasterous attempt at copresidency during her husband's first two years, culuminating in the healthcare failure, she was relegated to typical first lady tasks -- trips and charities? Hillary Clinton is backdooring her way into the White House the way poor students backdoor into Ivy league schools by choosing easy majors. She's pretending to have done something important though she hasn't, and is hoping that most Americans are fooled.

So glad to see such support for Obama, As an alum of Penn, I was so disappointed with the Daily PennsylvanianÃ?s endorsement of Hillary. This woman will say and do anything to get elected. Not only is she divisive, she is basically a liar! I found the below article very interesting, and is further fuel to why I support Obama. Obama's old virtues The political strategy of the Democratic favourite has its roots in a rich republican tradition This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday April 03 2008 on p30 of the Comment & debate section. It was last updated at 00:02 on April 03 2008. For all the goodwill and admiration that Barack Obama attracts, from beyond as well as within America, many hold doubts about the staying power of the political enthusiasm he has engendered. They point to the doomed vulnerability of large-hearted idealism in the public sphere. Even were he to be elected, they imagine him buried alive in the Oval Office by the institutionalised lobbies and corporate interests that actually run the United States. At the heart of these concerns lies a misunderstanding of Obama's approach and the progressive tradition from which he emerges, because he is engaged in something not seen on the national stage for a very long time. Yet it is also a deeply familiar endeavour that most Americans would find recognisable from school history lessons. Obama emerges directly from a powerful radical tradition in US politics which is embedded in its founding ideology - classical republicanism. It is more than the static ideals of liberty, equality and justice - which established democracies in place of tyranny, monarchy, slavery and empire. It is the craft of popular sovereignty: active citizenship. Political republicanism remains a set of collective practices engaged in by free citizens to achieve those ideals. Thomas Jefferson once declared for a revolution every 15 years in America - not simply because the first was so limited but because of the ossifying nature of power in the institutional architecture of the republic. The core of republican philosophy is an appreciation of the need to constantly restore and return the locus of sovereignty, of power, to the people themselves, away from those institutions and interests that capture and hold it, and thereby keep the body politic, and freedom, alive. This, the very essence of democracy, is not secured by elections but by the activities and associations through which citizens engage in the public sphere. If citizens wish to live as a free people, the struggle to obtain (or simply maintain) political freedoms must be engaged on anew by each generation, and advanced through a remarkable dynamic that was known, in the republican discourse of the 18th and 19th centuries, as practising the virtues. What does it mean to practise the virtues in politics? It is, quite simply, engaging in practices for the common good in the public sphere. It does not rely on a virtuous leader to look up to, or that fights for you, but one who, by engaging in these practices, helps unleash an equal creative capacity in others. Hope and courage are more than crucial republican virtues: they are the very engine that encourages others to join a common endeavour that can take on powerful opponents. And this dynamic creates a great deal more than particular benefits for individual citizens. It recognises that they themselves possess the ultimate liberty: the political liberty of designing their common future. Is it any wonder Obama is so wildly appreciated by the powerless, by people across parties, and especially by the younger generation of Americans? Another attribute of republicanism is that once this common process is initiated, creative answers to obstacles do not emerge only from the strategy room at the top of the campaign but also from a much larger arena of action, where organised structures at every level constantly produce new solutions. The endorsement of Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey at such a crucial moment is just one illustration of these constant gestures, often against personal political interests and for the common good, in order to maintain a collective momentum. This is the precise strategy that Obama would bring into Washington in November, and into the White House in January. For the ideology of republicanism is, historically, a successful strategy to overcome entrenched, powerful interests through popular mobilisation. It is neither a bottom-up nor top-down process but something larger than the sum of both, working both inside and outside national institutions towards a common goal. Different fragments of this tradition can be found in previous generations: from the interest-based community organising of a Saul Alinsky to the mobilising civic movement of a Martin Luther King; from the top-down restructuring of Franklin Roosevelt to the more hybrid model of Bobby Kennedy. It recreates a public sphere where it is understood that political change happens collectively, for the common good; and that hope is the toughest tool in the arsenal.

As an alumni of UPenn, I am disgusted at your decision to endorse Hilary. I csnnot imagine such a campus of rich minds believing in the crap that the Clintons have to offer. You have decided to believe what Hilary tells you. You deserve the kind of government that she has to offer.

I am a Penn graduate, and am surprized to see that Obama is favored. I can understand the misinformed, the young voters who appreciate his 'charisma' being taken in - but my fellow Quakers? I wrote the notes below regarding the media. Please read some of my thoughts. Obama looks good, but the man is a phoney and not Presidential material. Please reconsider. I find it impossible to believe how biased the media has been in favor of Obama. I cannot even watch NBC - you could vomit form their sickening bias. And CNN is not far behind. And Associated Press - horrible. What happenened to honest fair reporting in this country. You expect certain right or left wing biased news from certain quarters, but the mainstream news has lowered its standard to gutter level. As far as Obama having to field tough questions, I say not soon enough, and still not enough. The facts about his associations were circling on the internet from the onset of the primarys - but the mass media kept it shielded from the general news. Had we known what is out there now from the start, I do not believe Obama would be in the position he is today. The fact is that the issues are not the decsive factors regarding these two candidates. They both say about the same thing - change in more or less the same ways. Obama'a campaign and his glib rhetoric stated his 'chicken in every pot' for whoever he's talking to -very well. He is good looking, articulate, and a charmer. But when you look beneath the shiny book cover - the contents don't look so good. Yes his association with Ayers is questionable. Not because of what Ayers did when Obama was 8 years old (that Obama is clever) - what matters is his alliance/friendship with him as an adult. He did acknowledge still currently having a relationship with him. Of course the clear uncovering of his true character for me is his ties to Rev. Wright. So you say he is guilty by association - that's not fair. Of course he is not responsible for the views of Rev Wright or his words and he clearly rejects them-- NOW -- that he is in the hot seat running for office. You judge a person not by his gilded words but by his actions, and his friends - yes who he considers his close mentors. For twenty years, Rev Wright preached hate, racism, and division and most glaringly gave an award to Farakhan - a vile bigot and hate monger, the lowest of the low when it comes to decency. And for twenty years, Obama stayed in the church without protesting, without leaving, without rejecting the words of his minister ( Oh 'was that what he said?' - do you think we're all fools Obama?) Yes I judge Obama not by what Rev Wright said, but by Obama's reaction to it which speaks volumes about his character. I see the whole issue as about character because as I said the issues between these two are not significant. So the questions posed to Obama were long overdue, and he still dodged them. His speech about racism was great - but nothing to the point of his alliance with Rev Wright. If I were a close friend of Hitler or the head of the KKK for twenty years, and he was my mentor etc, and then I ran for office and said : You know I really love the Jewish/Black people and don't agree with Hitler/the KKK, but he's like family, and i never heard those mean words. Hello! The fact that he was close to Rev Wright not for one year, or when he was 8, but for twenty - yes - twenty long years as an adult with his wife and family is enough for me. I marched for integrationin Washington in 1960 with Mrs.Coretta King, and it was an honor to be there. It would be great to have a black President in this wonderful melting pot of many types of people in this United States. But not this one. The media should be ashamed of their juvenile, and ugly reporting and bias in his favor.

Note that the Obama supporters have nothing concrete to say about him, just as he has nothing concrete to say, no plans, no knowledge, just a bunch of whiny vague rhetoric. Obama has been stoking African-Americans (what a shame, for he has been selling them down the river for years). He's also being very untruthful about his black supremacist position, though it's nothing new in black politics and religion. Good way to grub votes from the black community and meanwhile hypocritically grub votes from the Starbucks people who lap up this crap even while they're being laughed at and despised behind their backs. Let's face it: a skin color, or a gender, does not a savior make. It's racist to vote for someone based on the color of his skin, rather than a genuine understanding of who he is and what he stands for. No one who watched the debates could in good conscience vote for Obama. He's the Republican's wet dream. So are you. See you in the bread lines.

My fellow Americans, Lauren's comments are elitist and out of touch. Is this the direction we want to send America? We are not bitter because, whether rich or poor, we know we have the intelligence and the ability to make it into the Ivy League. Though, that is beside the point--admission into the Ivy League is only a minor accomplishment. Know this, my fellow Americans! Lauren is bitter not because you earned entrance into a good school via the noble front door and, or with the help of a philanthropic financier. She is mad because her coat of arms had to endow an edifice--even though she is a Legacy--to gain her admission. You will know this, my fellow Americans. Lauren's intelligence-be it Ivy League or not--is the type of intelligence that is hurting and will continue to hurt this country most of all. It is the rare intelligence. So, my fellow Americans, beware of elitist endowers of edifices and frightful fabricators of fact. For they are everywhere. In me. In you. In these words. In that word. In those words. Identify them. Control them. Do not go gentle into that good voting booth! After all, youÃ?each and everyone of youÃ?are the president of these united states. Goodnight and godlessÃ?I mean, God-bless, my fellow Americans. [QUOTE id="43f73d3c-18bb-4281-a858-1b6cdea51db7"]I can't believe so-called informed people are voting for Clinton. If anyone wants to see Obama provide details, they can just look at the prophetic nature of the warning he gave about the Iraq war before invading, at www.barackobama.com/judgment. Since then Hillary has tried to make it seem that he didn't really oppose it, and gave nothing but a speech, but if you search for his "barack obama opposition from the start" video on Youtube, you see him opposing the war on several tv shows, you see him stating that yes if we do invade we'll need to make sure it's well funded (and then Hillary spins this into "he voted for funding, so he doesn't really oppose it"). The only > 1 million subscriber newspaper that endorsed Hillary was the new york times. Why? Well the new republic wrote a story on how the editorial board was leaning towards Obama, yet their corporate chief, who is gym buddies with Clinton's chief fundraiser, and who didn't bother to attend one Obama interview and left the other one early, said they should endorse Hillary. There is an information gap. The young people who watch clips for themselves on YouTube, use sources other than CNN and the New York Times, know what the hell they're doing. Hillary Clinton is a liar and a fraud. She has less legislative experience than Obama, but she's supposed to be more experienced than him because she was married to the president? Although her records indicate that she wasn't present during most crises? Although they show that after her disasterous attempt at copresidency during her husband's first two years, culuminating in the healthcare failure, she was relegated to typical first lady tasks -- trips and charities? Hillary Clinton is backdooring her way into the White House the way poor students backdoor into Ivy league schools by choosing easy majors. She's pretending to have done something important though she hasn't, and is hoping that most Americans are fooled.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE id="7ba67de5-8f22-4947-83b2-05be18cd16a5"]As an alumni of UPenn, I am disgusted at your decision to endorse Hilary. I csnnot imagine such a campus of rich minds believing in the crap that the Clintons have to offer. You have decided to believe what Hilary tells you. You deserve the kind of government that she has to offer.[/QUOTE] You cannot be an alumnus! For your speech is riddled with typos beyond Ivy Threshold! Even worse, you assume with no due cause or substantiation! This is extraordinarily unbecoming of an Ivy Leaguer whom of which is expected to cite and synthesize--not fabricateÃ?learned arguments for use in the civil arena of thought! If by some egregious error you have received a degree or hold a B.S. B.S., please notify the Department of Human Economic Drain with utmost immediacy so that they may exchange papers and give you the proper certification right away! Chop! Chop!

Good thing our country is not run by students!

I'm glad our country is not run by a bunch of dopie students!

[QUOTE id="7ba67de5-8f22-4947-83b2-05be18cd16a5"]As an alumni of UPenn, I am disgusted at your decision to endorse Hilary. I csnnot imagine such a campus of rich minds believing in the crap that the Clintons have to offer. You have decided to believe what Hilary tells you. You deserve the kind of government that she has to offer.[/QUOTE] Just how did you get into UPenn? I am guessign that you support the terrorist loving Obama! Maybe Obama is right about you small town people!