Hillary, however, always was on the horizon for me, as I watched her identify the "vast Right-wing Conspiracy" she got ridiculed for way, way back then.

She was right back then, and she has fought tooth and nail to expose and oppose them ever since.

Another thing I noticed, after first arriving in the states, was the gullibility of Americans to opening their hearts and being influenced by advertisements.

Where I came from, advertisements were restricted to the top of the hour.  2 or 3 minutes, and no programs being interrupted by them.

I felt furious about the constant interruptions in programming.  That was new to me, and I didn't like it.

But here it just seemed like it was a normal thing.  I don't know how I can quite link this to the current political climate, but I have a strong feeling that this is part of why the populace acts the way it does.  And I think it's outright stupid.  But of course, I grew up in another country.  So I expect a comment or two telling me to go back to where I came from.

Hillary has just amazed me over the years.  She is a woman all of us women should be proud of.  She's gone through hell and high water more often than I've had my period.

Whatever happens, she's my lady, and will go down in the history books as one true fighter, for the rights of women, children, and ordinary people.

In Oregon several Obama offices are open across the state with more expected. The difference in the candidates ground game is remarkable. Even the most rural of counties has an Obama field rep assigned.

It appears that Obama fully endorsed that perspective when he was a State Senator. The Chicago Tribune paraphrased Obama's thoughts on this in a story in 2005: "When it comes to race, Obama makes his point--with subtlety".

Obama is not directly quoted. However, the Tribune article was posted on his website when he was a State Senator, and it's still posted online, so it's safe to assume that Obama feels he was accurately represented in the article.

She's already lost....sundering her own party. It is an inherently divisive strategy, but she doesn't appear to care.... destructive coup attempt. Clinton, unfortunately, is pretending not to notice. So at the moment, it's useless to demand she exit ....

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-did-she-lie.html

1. actually large donations which are submitted on-line in such a way as to appear to be numerous, small and new by an electronic operation that is set up just to perform the function of parcelling large amounts of monies into smaller, more numerous donations
   
2. actually foreign money funneled into the campaign via some kind of an electronic scheme mentioned in #1 due to Obama's history of what Rezko brought to the table from foreign money

"Hi -

I have never written an e-mail like this to a reporter, but I have a tremendous problem with 1) Dean and 2) how this is being reported in the media.  My problems start with the statements in your article here:

"Clinton wants both states counted in her column because she prevailed in the two primaries though some Democrats followed party instructions and stayed away. Obama's name didn't appear on the Michigan ballot.

``Michigan's wasn't an election,'' Dean said. ``You only had one candidate on the ballot. That's not an election.''"

My problems are, in the first paragraph, that it is implied that Clinton and her supporters did not follow the rules ("though some Democrats followed party instructions and stayed away"), that somehow, by voting, they are in the wrong.  This is reprehensible reporting and is monumentally contributing to the free-ride Obama is getting and the unfair, oft-promoted concept that Clinton has a 'will-do-anything-to-win' attitude that is hurting her chances now during a very critical time in her campaign and for our country.

This claim is perpetuated even further by the statement that "Obama's name didn't appear on the Michigan ballot."  A more clearly defined reporting of this situation would be that Obama withdrew his name from the MI ballot.  He did not have to withdraw his name, he did it to appease Iowa and the other early states.  Clinton left her name on the ballot for many reasons, not the least of which was that, as stated by her clearly (an oft-neglected part of her statement) that she didn't want to risk the party's chances come November.

Now, in regards to that second paragraph, I didn't see the Dean interview so I can't be sure if it was Dean that misspoke or if it is you, the one reporting it, but I do know for certain that Clinton was not the only person on the ballot (Kucinich, Gravel & Dodd were as well).  As a reporter, it should be your job to either 1) report it accurately if it is an accurate statement and, if it is not, then you must 2) question or state what is not accurate about the statment that was made by the person being quoted.  To me, this should be reporting 101.

Please report fairly.  I don't feel that I should be e-mailing these kinds of responses, but I am starting to feel as if someone has to start speaking up, whether their voices are heard or not.

Thank You,
Isaac."