Wow footballfan, real classy.

Thanks for pointing out the fact that his middle name is Hussein; I certainly won't vote for him now. Oh, and you say he's a recovering addict AND he used to sell drugs? Well, I guess that since his name is Hussein Obama (almost Osama) and he's always throwing that race card around, what else should we expect? Thanks for keeping us real, dude.

On second thought, go back to watching football, you moron.

Comparing Obama's candidacy to Bush's doesn't hold up, especially when considering the dirty tricks he pulled on McCain after New Hampshire in 2000. Obama has shown himself to be above that kind of campaigning, while the Clintons have gleefully jumped right into it, taking pages out of Rove's playbook.

Well, if you bothered to read about his actual accomplishments, first as a community activist, then as a state senator, then as a US senator, it would be pretty clear to see that much of his success has been rooted in bringing people together.

SeedsofChange: While I generally share your skepticism towards the corporate media and generally want to knock some sense into David Brooks' head, it seems that you are content to regurgitate hearsay and the oversimplified, distorted "facts" coming out of Clinton's war room.

Yes, our diversity has great potential to be our strength - that is what Obama's candidacy is all about. Diversity is different than divisiveness, which aims to pit people against each other rather than find common ground. Obama is about inclusiveness, which brings out the best aspects of our diversity and can lead to real progress in the issues that affect our lives. Divisiveness usually leads to an escalation of negativity and distortion, precluding any real progress. Case in point: eight years of George W Bush in the White House.

Think about it:
If Obama were to play Clinton's game, he could just as easily accuse her of flip-flopping on the Iraq issue: First she voted for authorization (without even having read all of the intelligence on Iraq's WMD, I might add) and continually voted to fund the war, but then all of a sudden she stops voting to fund it and now she wants to pull the troops out before they complete their mission? What a flip flopper!
But of course, he's not saying that because he doesn't resort to cheap tricks that oversimplify and distort his opponents' positions.

Here is a good, objective article that addresses many of the Clintons' attacks on Barack:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755/page/1

And a surprisingly insightful piece written by a conservative columnist about why Obama's supposed lack of experience doesn't matter as much as the Clintons would have you believe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinio...

It's time to transcend the divisiveness that the Clintons and the status quo of both parties seem content to perpetuate. Obama has a real chance of leading this country in that direction.