I do not deny that there are people who vote for Obama because of his race. What I reject is the notion that his campaign relies on his race; at least to the degree that Clinton's campaign relies on her sex.

You frequently complain about Obama calling people 'racist'; I'm curious as to at least one example of such a cop-out.

One thing I have to hand to Hillary was her ability to dupe voters in my home state of Ohio into believing her lies on NAFTA. The primary voting bloc in Ohio are white women, including a lot of old white women. But aside from that a lot of labor Democrats for some odd reason supported Clinton after Edwards dropped out. Maybe it has to do something with the complete BS story of Obama going to the Canadian government and informing that his stances on NAFTA were just temporary campaign rhetoric. We know now from higher sources in the Canadian government that in actuality it was the Clinton campaign that went to the Canadian government

The Clinton's were the ones that originally pushed NAFTA, and Hillary consistently voted to retain NAFTA provisions. So, I do have to hand it to her and her husband their skills in dirty politics.

But I think the point is, is that people want to get away from the same-old dirty politics, multi-personalities, and straight-out lies. This is why Obama is attractive.

I consider myself a realist; and I believe someone has to be a naive idealist to the fullest capacity of that word's meaning to believe that electing Clinton would bring change to Washington. A realist knows that Hillary Clinton is one of the most 'involved' among Washington Democrats with big business and special interests.

Actually, when Obama actually chooses to defend himself, his comebacks are a lot more witty and hard-hitting than Clinton's. One major problem I have with Obama's campaign is that they frequently confuse valid and truthful defense with dirty politics. Some of the lowest of the lowest bullshit is coming from the Clinton campaign (the emails about him being a Muslim, his going to the Canadian government about NAFTA, Obama 'acting like Kenn Star', etc.), and Obama's campaign needs to do a lot more to come back.

I like to think that if Lincoln was the best we could do, then we have pretty low standards. It's my contention that Obama would break these standards pretty easily.

Lincoln would have done anything to retain the union, even if it meant enslaving freedmen in the North. He frequently expressed those feelings himself. Whether Lincoln was actually not racist and was genuinely interested in equal rights for racial minorities is unclear and should be left up to historians to debate. All I know is that he could have done a lot more; at least to the equivalent standard of the 'Radical Republicans'.

Again, how can he stop that which he doesn't actually do? I personally haven't seen him call anyone racist because they bring up valid questions about race relations.

But you cannot deny that the bullshit about Obama being a Muslim (many of those email strings were released from the Clinton campaign), is racist. You cannot deny that defining Obama's campaign on the basis of his race does fall under the category of racism. If the claim that Obama's race is the only factor in his success was backed with the concurring evidence then it would be a genuine point; but saying such things on conjecture and bias when they go contrary to the evidence is closely related to racism.

Having an affair is barely what I would consider the mark of a bad President. I think 'him getting us into Vietnam' is misleading but does express a limited amount of truth. Vietnam was mostly LBJ's doing. Whether or not it would have escalated to the extent that LBJ caused had JFK not been assassinated is unclear.