Personally, I don't like either candidate. I also have to add a correction to one of the previous posters. Hillary might be riding high on her husbands fame, but Bill Clinton would not have been president if it wouldn't have been for Hillary. She is the powerhungry one. At the time she realized, she could only get into the White House, if her husband is president. America was way too conservative to tolerate a female president at the time. And she worked hard and pushed him hard to get Bill into the White House. She made the connections in the background and build the relationships with those who are important and can even the way. Who would have thought that times change this quickly, she might have put in more efforts for herself at the time....

Still, because of her husbands 'legacy' she will not be president. Too many people don't want to see him back in the White House. And yes, she has contradicted herself in words and actions on numerous occasions. She is powerhungy and relentlessly vicious in her pursuit of the nomination. People don't like that. I don't like that.

Obama on the other hand is indeed a smoothtalker. He presents himself as if he could change things over night. Already people working on his campaign have to admit that for example the Iraq pull out cannot be done as quickly has he has promised numerous times. But even the time frame they quote is insane. Anybody who knows anything about political and economic functions knows that a lot of his campaign promises are just that campaign promises that will fall to the side as soon as he is elected. But that is part of politics. They all lie to get votes. Wish it would be different.... Obama can make as many promises as he wants, if the legislators don't pass the respective laws, he can't do anything. He will say, he tried, but the opposition and the true ecomonic situation, I did not expect the situation too be THIS bad, oh well.... Sounds familiar, right? Don't we go through something like that right now in KY?

And yes, Obama got support from within the party from all of those, who don't like Hillary (even though publicly they embrace her, when they meet her), and they don't want to see her as president. In case you have forgotten how politics works, if you want to rise within a party, you need many supporters on the inside. Without those supporters, Obama would be a nobody. Some important people have pushed his career along.

Let's face it, without Obama Hillary probably had a good chance for a nomination, even a good shot at the presidency. She became senator, because she managed to mobilize the female voters and the minority voters. But now, with Obama opposing her, both appeal to and vie for exactly those voters. The sentiment probably was that Obama will have better luck with the minorities because of his background (yes, race is an issue in this election). And that Hillary will give up more easily and make room for the new 'Kennedy' from a minority background, Obama, with a pretty wife and cute children, perfect couple, perfect family, fulfilling the American dream. Yes, America can be tolerant. Everybody, no matter what the background, can succeed. Just look at our new president.

It would have worked like that, but they miscalculated. Hillary loves power and will not give up, no matter what. I'm sure she truly believes she can still turn things around.

No matter what, quite frankly, as it stands right now, neither Obama, nor Clinton, stand a chance in the next election. Their fight was too bitter, it caused friction among supporters and within the democratic party. What some have stated here, is the sentiment among many supporters. If the person, they don't support, gets the nomination, they will vote for McCain. Of course not all of them will follow through with this, but it might just be enough. Lack of enthusiasm will also be a problem. How can one support the candidate, who just a couple of days ago was such a bitter enemy?

Anyhow, like in a nasty divorce, too much dirty laundry was aired. The democratic infighting will cost them the White House. It played right into the hand of the Republicans.

Now, to those who think this article is a free onesided ad for Obama, did not thoroughly read the article. There was mention of the fact that Clinton does not seem to have an official campaign office in this state (I guess we are not important). Attempts were made to reach her or her people for a statement, but nobody was available for a comment. Maybe, if more effort would have been made, and Clinton would already actively campaign in this state, she would have gotten exposure, too.

I wonder if the ticket will be Obama-Cinton for the general election.

Only Obama can bring Democrats together. About the ties w/ the Pastor, we should listen to Obama, Obama is a uniter, very one knows that. He is the one who draw bigger crowds, he is the one who brought younger voters & independents to the polls. , it's about bringing this country TOGETHER and bringing about change to Washington. Bill in the White House againno way.
Clinton always says I have connections w/ so many people. That's because of her husband. She takes credit for her husband's administration. That's not fair at all. Because of him, she enjoyed all the privileges. I argue she wouldn't have a political career had she NOT BEEN THE WIFE OF BILL CLINTON. Just because she is a former first lady, doesn't mean she is more qualified. "I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. Hilary could care less about the voters in Michigan nor Florida because if she cared at all she would have never signed that agreement. That's right she signed the agreement and now all of sudden she cares so much about them. Get real. This lady seems to have a pattern of stuff like this. I signed the bill but I hoped it didn't get passed. I signed for the war but I didn't realize we would go to war. Is this what thirty five years of experience gets us.
. I believe Obama is where he is today because he's smart, hard-working, caring and offers a vision for America that no other candidate does. THIS IS NOT A RACE THING.The color of Obama's skin has nothing to do with it. Sen. Clinton misrepresents Obama's HOPE as lack of action. In truth, the HOPE is because his inclusive nature will ALLOW action. My family lives in Pennsylvania, and they are ALL white educated people. They will NOT VOTE for CLINTON. As I stated they are all educated and do not fall for the Clintons unethical antics. She is running on the name "Clinton". "change" and "judgment" are clearly not in either McCain's or Clinton's column .They are in Obama's column.
If you do the math, any way Obama is going to be the Dem Nominee. Pl support him..OBAMA'08
OBAMA'08 OBAMA'08 OBAMA'08

ibdeb,

I'm curious, you seem very certain that Senator Obama does not offer what we need, please tell me what we need?

"And for those of you who are wondering how the Bluegrass for Obama Group got coverage by the State Journal, stop wondering and stop offense. After you read up on the issues, you, too, can join your candidate's campaign and become involved."

Neither becoming (more) involved with a candidate's campaign nor well-read ensures an equality coverage by the State Journal. A correlation does not exist.

The issue is that this supposedly "neutral" newspaper has endorsed a candidate through backdoor means. If the editors of the paper had any gumption, they would publicly endorse a candidate with the assignation that this is THE candidate garnering full support of the State Journal.

I have always considered myself to be a "die-hard" democrat, and have pretty much voted a straight party ticket every time. However, I will vote republican before I ever consider voting for Obama. This man is nothing but a hypocrite, and I believe we will find, an illusionist. All of his supporters have this illusion of such a wonderful outlook for tomorrow, when I believe, this man will just take us further and further from what we need. I don't believe a word he says and when he has refused to salute our flag and has ties to such horrid men as his "friend" in Chicago...well, I would gladly support any republican if we don't have Clinton on the democratic ticket.

When all is said and done, when one goes to the polls it doesn't matter what one's pastor has told his congregation. Those of you that are using this site to voice opinions about Rev Jeremiah are on the wrong site. He has his own website where you can tell him how you feel. Also, don't forget he will have his day to explain his opinions - when he reaches that final gate.

Most of us have attended churches, schools, and have been involved in groups where we don't always agree with the one in charge (e.g. our jobs, or a social group). We may not be able to get out of the job, but we stay with that church, school, or social group because we work past those things we disagree with and realize there are better reasons for staying. That doesn't mean we agree with everything that goes on. (Oh, and if anyone can name a church where everyone agrees with their minister all the time, name it. Some of us are looking for that place.)

People educate yourself. GO to the internet, the library, and read the newspapers. Do your own research before you vote. "Listen" to each candidate and decide for yourself which candidate is most going to benefit you, your family, your issues, and this country.

And for those of you who are wondering how the Bluegrass for Obama Group (http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/BluegrassforObama)got coverage by the State Journal, stop wondering and stop offense. After you read up on the issues, you, too, can join your candidate's campaign and become involved.

obama is nothing but a hypocrite=a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

It seems that the media is using the "non issues" to distract us from what needs to be addressed by the candidates.

I agree - it is a blatant ad and I take issue (irregardless of the candidate) with the SJ for printing it. The inclusion of the link really puts this over the line. It'll be interesting to see if a Clinton fundraiser will be featured in an upcoming issue.

It makes one wonder who's pocketing money at the paper, what with the front page "ads of interest" for businesses and now this.