Andrew Brin said: a million people donating and volunteering is really something but imagine if a million people believed and actually mounted a campaign, could get by the election rules and fundrasing restrictions and ballot requirements what if the system even allowed for 1000 "viable" candidates now that would be historic ::: pointless press answers would not be able to handle the flow :::

josselin said: I am a french. Je suis en bretagne, une province française proche de la normandie ou tant des vôtres sont tombés en 1944. Je veux vous faire part de mon souhait de vous voir élu en novembre prochain. Nous avons eu la chance, ici, d'avoir choisi Nicolas Sarkozy. Il bouscule les habitudes. Je suis persuadué que votre élection ne devrait apporté que joie et bonheur dans votre pays qui aspire lui aussi au changement. Je suis les primaires d'assez prés, mon fils Patrick étant professeur à l'école française de Bethesda et ayant par ailleurs la double nationalité. BON COURAGE ET BON VENT René JOSSELIN 2 rue abbe Blanchet 22130 PLANCOET FRANCE

chuck oneil said: Thanks for the post Hillel! Below is a rant for the politically obsessed, preceded by a negative slogan that is not really Obama's style, but is my style: "Hillary would rather beat dead horses than beat the Republicans." I think its clear that yes, Clinton was given a hard time by the press; but what is upsetting, and this is being played out now, is that the Hillary scrutiny has been mostly about her personality, which is objectively understandable, her own campaign has struggled with how to present her and some staffers have either quit or have been fired or have seeked to distance themselves from the campaign because they haven't been able to figure it out. And Obama has never really struggled on the personality issue, despite poor debate performances early on, or despite SNL's terribly one-sided skits and Fred Armisen's totally misguided performance might suggest: people like Obama and yes the press loved him too. Some pundits were swooning eralier on only to take a much harsher tone now with Obama, after clinton claimed she was being treated unfairly. And this is understandable. But was happenend is, while Clinton's personality was on media trial earlier, Obama's credibility and experience are on media trial now. Clinton has of course sought to create this negative media attention. But the media and the Clinton campaign are of course are aided by the recent embarassing implications of the Candaian Consulate back door NAFTA and of the Rezko's trial. Both situations of course have no clear thread to Obama himself and there is no proof of any wrong doing, just muckiness. And the media has levied accurate criticism against Obama for the lack of a clear and immediate response to the CANADIAN NAFTA issue. So Obama's getting beaten up a bit right now, and the timing is terrible for him, obviously. BUT, BUT, BUT what the press should not ignore, is a just level of scrutiny for Hillary Clinton's claims of 35 years of experience. I hear pundits now throwing "35 years of experience" to the delight of the clinton campaign. My point is: when is the press going to deconstruct this 35 years of experience??? The Obama campaign needs to have somebody pushing this question. Now, in fairness, Obama has been on the defensive of late, so it's been hard to counter punch. And yes I think Obama's "red phone" response was on the money: he has shown the judgment, foresight and strategic thinking of a commander in chief. When has Clinton done this? What foreig policy experience does she have that actually qualifies her to be commander in chief? Her aides in a phone interview could not answer the question. Somebody needs to be harping on this. And some people are: in fact the normally wonderfully articulate and captivating Congreswoman from Ohio, Stephanie Tubbs Jones was herself tongue tied over the issues when Tucker Carlson asked her the question on Tucker, yesterday. Youtube it. Point is, we should not allow oursleves or the press to be wooed by the myth of 35 years of experience that supposedly qualifies her to be president. becuase if you focus on it. There are OBVIOUS HOLES. And the cirticisms have been done in bits in pieces, Barack nailed has nailed her on her Iraq war vote and has nailed her on her back door Health Care "fight" that yielded less than desirbale results because of Clinton's divide and conquer approach. But If Barack is going to be successful in wrapping up this nomination before the convention, we the voters and the press need to scrutinize this claim of expeirence and not give Clinton a pass on experience and her failures and what that says about her presidential leadership skills. Because my feeling is what we need now is to brace ourslelves for the damage that Hillary is willing to do, in order to win. And if you try to fight her attempt to win by superdelegates, or her insistence that Florida and Michigan should count, and her preemptive legal threats over the caucus system in texas, you will lose. You and the country and the enthusiastic democratic, independent voters will lose because you will be playing Hillary's game of tearing down the enthusiasm for Barack and thirst for change that so much of the country has shown they want. Hillary would rather beat dead horses than beat the Republicans

RDunham said: If anyone is still questioning his vision on Change here it is America. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf Please pass this link on to anyone you know that tells you his vision of change is empty. Yes We ALL Can.