You have got to be kidding me, Savage Guy. To sit here and question whether Obama is Muslim is - I thought - beneath even you. Your posts are ludicrous, divisive and not worthy of a response. I, for one, am done playing your ridiculous game. No wonder you don't use your real name. I'm sure it's easier to post trash like this using an anonymous user name. This represents everything that is wrong with this society. I won't lower myself to your level anymore.

I am not a pick up my toys and go home guy like you Nesvig, so I will respond.

Why is it a problem to question whether he Obama is a Muslim or not? Did you happen to notice that it was radical Muslims who carried out 9/11, the bombing of the USS Cole, the first trade center attack in 1993, the invasion of Kuwait, and on and on?!? The least you could do is explain why questioning whethter Obama is a Muslim is a problem from your perspective. But as is typical for you, instead you just criticize me or my posts rather than formulate and write cogent responses.

Whenever you are ready to get back in the game, feel free to write. In the meantime, I will keep posting truthful, thoughtful and timely information as I see fit.

As for my not using my real name, if you check most of the posts here and on most blogs under the sun, most people don't use their real name. If you criticize me for it, I guess you are criticizing the majority of the people who post to blogs because most people don't use their real name. Frankly, my name is none of your business. You could choose to post anonymously but you don't. It's a free country.

I have written letters to the editor of the Pacer, the American, the Strib, etc. and have been happy to include my name when doing so. The blogosphere allows the writer to shoot from the hip (as it were) without having to worry if some nut job is going to egg your house or even worse. It is a free exchange of ideas without having to worry about someone coming after you or your family if they disagree with you. In this day and age of online predators, one can't be too careful.

Again, browse for yourself on any number of blogs and you will see that the vast majority of people post anonymously and many of them write very well and obviously have an impact because people write to reply to their posts.

According to this excerpt from an article in the WSJ today, Senator Obama has denounced Minister Farrakhan. Bravo Senator Obama. I have to give you credit for that statement.

"Asked during the debate whether he accepted the endorsement that he received from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has made anti-Semitic remarks, Sen. Obama issued a blunt rejection: "I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan. I did not solicit his support." The issue has been a sensitive one for Sen. Obama, who met with Jewish leaders Saturday in Cleveland."

Thanks, Savage Guy, for printing this to our attention. I think people forget that one of the missions of the U.S. military is to give humanitarian aid, which by the sounds of Angelina's commentary, is a future step in Iraq.

Obama's weakness on national security and his "wink wink" to Canada on NAFTA hurt him in the Texas and Ohio votes yesterday. Looks like the train is running out of steam.

It's positively wonderful for the Republicans because Obama and Clinton will now have to bloody one another for awhile longer while McCain can focus on the general election. Who would have thought we would be where we are a year ago? Just proves the "political experts" are not always right!

At lease Obama can say soon to be former Governor Eliot Spitzer was NOT a supporter of his! Clinton can not make the same claim.

Another day, another Clinton apology for one of her campaign people saying something inappropriate. Now it's Geraldine Ferraro suggesting Obama wouldn't be where he is if it weren't for his race. This whole thing is unfolding like a dream for the Republicans!

Question: why is is when a Republican is caught up in a sex scandal (see Larry Craig coverage), the mainstream TV media mentions multiple times that he is a Republican, but when a Democrat is caught (see Eliot Spitzer coverage), there is almost no mention of the fact that he is a Democrat. Answer: because most of the mainstream media votes for Democrats and will do what they can to help their cause.

I understand your point about New York and California constantly in the national media spotlight, Nancy, but I would tend to disagree that a governor from any state could slip under the national media radar if they spent $80,000 on prostitutes.

The Democrats should be very nervous if Senator Obama gets the nomination. As this Wall Street Journal opinion piece points out, Obama did not leave the church even after his minister said some very hateful things. Silence and incaction equals implied complicity and agreement in this case or any case where you have a choice over who you associate with and worship with and you choose not to leave in spite of intolerable things being said from the pulpit. Why didn't Obama leave? The "crazy uncle" argument doesn't work. You can't choose your relatives but you can choose your pastor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770107738700007.html?mod=opinion_main...

As the following Wall Street Journal editorial points out, the mainstream media continues to treat Obama with kid gloves and those who would ask legitimate questions of Obama with incredulity and condemnation. The good news is that the media only has so much power to protect their prized candidate. Eventually, the truth has come out about Obama and it isn't helping his campaign. Clinton and Obama will continue to duke it out all the way to the convention while McCain campaigns relatively unscathed. A nightmare for the Democrats and a dream for the Republicans.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120891044439036617.html?mod=hpp_us_insid...

Is bombing charming? I don't think so and I think most people would agree. However, Obama's professor friends (and former bombers) Dohrn and Ayers are described as "charming" my most people who meet them. As this letter to the Wall Street Journal published on May 5, 2008 illustrates, not everyone agrees that charm should negate the heinous crime of bombing. It (again) calls in to question Obama's choice of friends and people with whom he chooses to associate.

"Charming Bombers, But What of Victims?
Elizabeth Wurtzel ("Obama's Other Radical Friends," op-ed, May 2) can be forgiven her youthful fascination with radical bomber Bernardine Dohrn. We all have ideas at 15 that seem silly from the perspective of middle age. Barack Obama's reported close relationship with Ms. Dohrn and Bill Ayers is much more troubling and raises legitimate questions about his judgment and maturity.

In a 33-year law-enforcement career I had occasion to arrest many charming criminals. One of the most engaging was a California radical, rapist and prison escapee associated with the Symbionese Liberation Army (remember them?) who was living in Louisiana. When, after an intensive undercover investigation, I confronted him with his true name, he stuck out his hand and said "You must have talked to them in Oakland." Indeed I had, and what I learned was chilling.

From all accounts, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn are equally charming. That does not nullify their crimes. Placing a bomb is one of the most evil of acts because the effects of a bomb are totally indiscriminate and incredibly devastating. Just ask a young Iraq War veteran who will live the rest of his or her life minus body parts. Just ask the families of those killed by Timothy McVeigh in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

There is little moral difference between Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn and McVeigh. Timothy McVeigh was simply a less charming individual and a more successful bomber. He received just punishment for his crime. Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn did not.

Greg Phares
Baton Rouge, La."

What would you suggest for health care?

Clinton continues to hang on for dear life. She doesn't know how to lose or quit so I can understand why it is hard for her to admit failure in this case.

Meanwhile, Obama is trying to act and talk like the democratic nominee. He is fortunate the Rev. Wright thing came out during the democratic nomination contest rather than being sprung on the American public during the general election contest. Nonetheless, the fact remains that he sat under this man's teaching for years, called him all kinds of wonderful things in a speech about a year ago, and only now is distancing himself from the man due to the "inconvenient truth" of what he believes! It would seem that he has gone to the Clinton school of flip flopping. Only time will tell if the American public will remember in November.

Here's the difference. McCain's pastor said he was sorry (see article below). Obama's pastor not only did NOT apologize; he defended and expanded on his dubious remarks!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-mccain14-2008may1...

McCain is accountable for who he chooses to associate with (i.e. his pastor) just as Obama is accountable. Again, the difference is one made a mistake and admitted it. The other one defended his mistake and expanded on it. Only then did Obama distance himself from his pastor. It is similar to how Kerry voted against the war before he voted for it, and how Clinton is now against the war when before......she was for it. Right out of the democratic playbook. Read the polls and change your position. When the polls reverse themselves, change your position again. Repeat. No strength of conviction.

You say that Obama only distanced himself from Wright for political reasons, but you don't say that Hagee only "apologized" for political reasons. Interesting. And you also criticize Democrats for flip-flopping when they read the polls, but you said in a different post that McCain is only talking about global warming now that it's something people are concerned with. That sounds like the definition of flip-flopping, especially since he a has long track record of voting against doing anything about the environment. Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose what to express outrage over in one candidate while ignoring it in another. Well, obviously you can, but I don't think there's a lot of credibility in doing that.

You're missing my point, which is that Hagee's "apology" is meaningless. To suggest that Hagee recognized the error of his ways is laughable at best. He's been questioned about his comments for months now and was given opportunity after opportunity to apologize. He refused. He stood by his comments. Then, after obvious political pressure, he caved in and gave an "apology" that no one believes or accepts - except, of course, people who already back McCain and bash Obama for his ties to Wright and need to find a way to make these two situations different.

As for McCain's history on the environment, his votes are a matter of public record.

Here's some info. I'm sure you'll question this so-called scorecard by the League of Conservation Voters, but that doesn't change the facts in regards to McCain's voting record (or lack thereof):

Sen. McCain of Arizona, the likely Republican nominee, rated a zero out of 100 for his votes on environmental issues last year, the League of Conservation Voters said in the group's national environmental scorecard.

Over the course of his Senate career, his score was a 24 percent, compared to lifetime scores of 87 percent for Clinton and 86 percent for Obama, both Democrats.

The Democratic candidates scored lower in 2007, with Sen. Clinton of New York scoring 73 percent for her votes and Sen. Obama of Illinois getting 67 percent, the report found.

McCain has sponsored legislation to combat climate change, and is described on his campaign Web site, www.johnmccain.com, as having a "record of common sense stewardship" of the environment.

However, he missed all 15 environmental votes for 2007 that were tallied in the report, including a vote on repealing billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil companies, a measure that failed by one vote, the report said.

By contrast, Obama and Clinton each missed four of the 15 key votes on the environment last year, and both were on hand to vote for a version of an energy bill that would have repealed the oil companies' tax breaks.

Oh, I see. So Hagee's apology is meaningful, but Obama renouncing his former pastor's comments and cutting all ties with him is not? Gotcha. Just wanted to be clear.

It took Obama years to denounce Wright and distance himself from him and only after political pressure to do so (not to mention running for President) and only after Wright did not apologize. You don't address the issue of what it means for Obama to have sat under this man's teaching for all those years, seemingly in agreement with him. You also don't address Obama pulling a Jesse Ventura (i.e. "religion is for the weak minded") and alienating religious people (and gun owners) all in one fell swoop when he made his "clinging" comments. Guess addressing those issues woudn't fit your pre-determined conclusion.

What McCain said is not very disturbing if you consider what he endured in the Hanoi Hilton. Even if it does disturb you and others, McCain apologized. Get over it. Wright did not apologize; that's why people won't get over what he said, nor will they get over the fact that Obama stuck with him and attended his church as long as he did.

Might I ask ... isn't the separation of church and state being mixed together here?