Tucker Carlson response:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9N9mpdST7VM&a mp;feature=related

   This morning I saw This Week with George Stephenoupolus and Sam Donaldson said something that highlighted a great point. He said that Obama supporters weren't angry over the questions, they were angry because the moderators asked hard questions, questions, about issues Obama thought weren't going to bite him. He also said that it's funny how the Obama camp didn't complain about keeping on topic of the issues or that the media was dragging the story too long when it was Hillary's Bosnia gaff. And I'd like to add something to Donaldson's point. The Obama camp didn't have a problem bringing up Geraldine Ferraro's comments either.

       So I've asked many Obama supporters this and I want to ask again. If you're mad at the fact that they asked him hard questions during the debate and he couldn't answer them in a legit manner then why don't you come out and say it. Why are you pretending that it's the questions you had a problem with? It's obvious you guys reacted the way you did because Barack was off his game, therefore he got exposed in the debate. And, it wasn't just those questions about flag pins or his pastor that upended him mind you. He also slipped on the issue of a gun control survey, his stance on gun rights, and his answer when asked about whether or not he would raise the capitol gains tax in which he conceded he would raise it. By the way raising the capitol gains tax effects everyone, not just the upper class. Just a side note.

So I have a few questions for the Obama supporters:

1.Do words only matter when Obama's not making misstatements?

2.If no one in America knows Barack Obama all that well, is it not appropriate to find out exactly who he is and who he dealt with in the past if we did that to many candidates prior?

3. When Hillary or John McCain have shady people backing them and  when they commit a slip of the tongue it's ok to pile on them?

4.Yet when Barack Obama slips up or has some shady characters in his life and people bring it up all the sudden it's "politics as usual"?

         What I'm trying to get at is, if Obama is suppose to be a new politician then why is he using the same old tactics he condemns and blames Senator Clinton for using? Doesn't that pretty much eat away at his central message? Of new politics and change? Can you only represent change externally and be the same old, same old on the inside? It seems that way. If Barack Obama wants to end divisive politics in Washington and in America then why has he parsed and exploited almost every misstep John McCain and Hillry Clinton committed in this campaign? For example John McCain's economic plan and his 100 years comment. Why are his supporters threatening to dismantle the party if he's not the nominee if this is a new campaign? Is bending the rules the new era of politics? Hiding behind a strong message all the while cutting from the same old deck of cards? If so then maybe Barack Obama is the best politician we've seen in American history. He managed to get us to believe what he said while playing with a trick hand. Honestly, that's quite brilliant. Getting people to buy change without actually giving them change.

So explain to me. What was so criminal about the debate?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ow79-raKxSg&a mp;feature=related


http://youtube.com/watch?v=2tVDu62Ox0U&a mp;feature=related

This is a very interesting article by David Brooks of the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinio n/18brooks.html?_r=3&oref=slogin& ;ref=opinion&pagewanted=print&or ef=slogin&oref=slogin

Here's something we can all laugh at. Theres been a lot of tension and bitterness, to use a now popular word, and for those who didn't catch Hillary on the Colbert Report well, here's our girl in action. She continues to show that when she wants to she can witty on the comedy shows and competent in regards to the issues.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KTm0U2sUySo

     I'm tired of all the Obama supporters getting their underwear in a twist when the media does them dirty. You know what? The likes of MSNBC, CNN, and other outlets been doing Hillary Clinton dirty since the Iowa caucus. So go cry a river of bitterness somewhere else. The Dailykos, say.

     It's a crime. An absolute crime that the media operates which such reluctant coverage of Barack Obama. I don't know if they're afraid of the blow back from his supporters or if they're rooting for him and intentionally overlook important issues about him. What I do know is that no one should be crying over Barack's debate performance because you all know that whenever Tim Russert and his MSNBC knock around guys put the pool sticks to Hillary's legs in those debates the media looked the other way like the guy standing outside the store while his buddies burglarized it.

    Bill Clinton could fart and it would be front page news, yet Michele Obama saying "America in 2008 is a down right mean country" wouldn't even make the back page of the Providence Times. So don't play this blame game because ABC decided to do it's job. Both candidates faced the fire and Obama got burned. Hillary didn't, end of story. If Hillary Clinton had been associated with Jeremiah Wright for the past 20 years the media would persecute her to high noon. Yet with Barack Obama it's just guilt by association. I'm growing weary of the media drubbing this election in favor of Barack Obama and his supporters. You don't want to upset them but if the truth upsets people then oh well.

       I was at the Hillary Clinton Facebook group and I heard from some fellow supporters that many Obamanites were absolutely fuming over last night's debate and the mugging Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos peformed on Barack Obama. Like other Pro-Hillary folks I'm wondering why the uproar? This is a debate. This is what debates are all about. Why is it that every time Senator Obama is questioned, whether about his record or something else, he gets upset and lectures people, or his campaign and or supporters fly off the handle and get angry. It seems that Barack Obama actually thinks that no one should ever question him or what he says. As if we should just take it and accept it. You know I'm starting to believe that maybe this "New style of politics" Obama talks about is everyone going along with what he thinks and says and never raises questions or challenges him on it.

      Throughout the night he kept trying to throw Senator Clinton under the bus whenever asked about his controversial dealings with Bill Ares and Jeremiah Wright. It's like a child  saying, "But Billy did this too" when they get in trouble for something. I credit Hillary Clinton for admitting her obvious misleading comments and apologizing for them. Barack Obama should have done the same but instead he continued to dance around his statements and his answers and throw up deflector shields. He also tried to spin it to where the moderators were the bad guys for even bringing it up. With every question posed to Barack Obama he has the tendency to say "Oh that's just the old politics we're trying to get rid of" yet he uses those same tactics he preaches against. I know all politicians do it but Barack Obama promised a new kind of politics and a new Washington, so when he does the very things he condemns it's more damaging because neither Hillary Clinton nor John McCain made that promised or preached that sermon so many times as Barack Obama did.

So where am I wrong? Is it ok for him to bring up Hillary Clinton's dirt and call her things and question her record? Yet when the same is done to him he can throw a fit like a child and blame the refs? This is hypocracy on the main stage. We don't know Barack Obama so he should have expected questions to come up about his past. We know Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They've been with us for over 30 years. But we don't know Senator Obama. So when Barack Obama accuses Hillary Clinton of trying to have it both ways, he's guilty of the same action. He tries to have it both ways.

       Senator Obama said that many people fell through the cracks of the Clinton Administration. You know I remember the Clinton Administration well. As I can recall millions of people in the middle class reaped the benefits of an economic surplus, two if I'm not mistaken; smaller government, and peace in the world. So who exactly were the people who fell through the "cracks" as Senator Obama put it in his comments about small town folks. I mean I'm no expert on the issue but I thought poor people benefited from a strong economy like everyone else. Unless theres super poor people? maybe? Does Senator Obama know an underground group of ultra poor people and he's talking about them? Did he meet them during his time as a community organizer? When he worked for Tony Rezko? Or when he was a law professor?

     Hillary Clinton expressed some anger at a press conference in Scranton yesterday and rightfully so. Barack Obama has some nerve trying to throw the Clinton Administration under the bus to save his own hide. This proves he's out of touch with America because many Democrats believe Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents we've ever had. In fact he was the last successful two term Democrat president. So where does this one and a half hour term Senator from Illinois get off?

     Theres a lot of people that hold fond memories of the 90s. Not just with the economic gains but there was peace in the world. Bill Clinton turned around the deficit created during the first Bush Administration. Smaller government and a surplus? That's pretty good I'd say. Barack Obama feels that's not enough. he wants you to need the government. He wants people to depend on the government for a way to prosper in this country.

     Do Barack and Michele Obama just go around criticizing everything they weren't apart of? Anything that wasn't done by them they say it's flawed and needs change. That's arrogance at an astronomical level. That's some dangerous ego tripping there. They act like "johnny come lately" and speak like saviors. But what they are, and people are starting to realize this, their self-centered. They truly believe they are saviors. Why else would he talk like this and not have a slight smirk on his face or sarcasm in his tone. He and his wife truly feel America is deeply flawed and according to her, a mean country in 2008.

      He tied the H.W. Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration together like they both caused damage in the country. That's not only false but it's misleading. So Barack Obama may not be a liar but he makes a lot of misleading comments. That's a bit more troubling in my opinion than just telling lies. With lies it's either true or not. When you mislead people you take advantage of their trust and belief in you. You tell half truths and you wrap them in promises and hypotheticals. I'm begining to think that maybe the Obama campaign was exactly that. One big hypothetical. A misleading tour de force disguised as an American Idol tour.

       Sunday at a rally in San Francisco Barack Obama made some controversial remarks about small town Americans and small town Pennsylvanians. He said,"And it's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

       Those comments landed him in hot water with people in Pennsylvania and some in the media who decided to do their job and report it. Though the issue aside from Barack Obama's obvious disconnect with the average American majority is the obvious double standard in the media. MSNBC and NBC jumped all over Bill Clinton's comments about his wife's Bosnia story yet they didn't once touch the Obama story. It's kind of odd that Bill Clinton comments, that in no way were as controversial or serious as the Obama comments were the top news story for the Today Show and MSNBC, yet the Obama remarks were made last weekend. That's enough time for a responsible news media outlet to report on. But then again we're talking about MSNBC; home to such shows as Hardball with Chris Matthews, who once described a feeling he had for Barack Obama as a "thrill running up his leg". So Chris Matthew's erection aside, let's get to the real problem.

       Barack Obama is playing right into the role he had hoped he would keep secret. The role as the liberal elitist whose so far out of the mainstream that it really makes people second guess whether he's "the great uniter". This is the same man whose suppose to have integrity and judgement, all the while having a friendly relationship with William Ares and Bernadine Dohrn of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group from the 1960s.

   This guy is unraveling right in front of our eyes at the most critical point in his campaign. It's as if all Hillary Clinton's scenarios for staying in the race are coming true. As a Hillary supporter I honestly feel good about Obama slipping up because I don't think he's good for the country, I think he's a progressive elitist that teeters on the brink of Saul Alinsky and Michael Dukakis. I think he's both. So far he's mislead people about the taking money from oil companies comments, he distorted John McCain's comments about Iraq, by the way ever since McCain and his staff brought that up Obama has since backed off. He also distorted John McCain and Hillary Clinton's economic and foreign policy credentials. Whether it was Hillary and NAFTA or him saying that McCain will sit by and do nothing while families lose their homes. McCain has said, like Obama and Clinton, that the government should help those who were victims of predatory lenders.

     Senator Obama is sorely mistaken when he claims that middle class and small town people are "bitter" toward the elites Obama hangs with in Chicago. They aren't jealous of his Harvard buddies. The real truth is that average Americans are angry but they aren't bitter. They get up everyday and they work hard because theres no use whining and feeling bitter and not doing anything about it. That's something Barack Obama, of all people should know. A man who struggled with personal identity most of his life and got up and made something out of himself. So why the blatant misstatements and disconnect? Well, Barack Obama made many friends in the progressive world of politics. Whether it's William Ares or whomever, Barack Obama lost touch with the very world he came from. Unlike the Clintons Barack Obama and Michele Obama paint a view of America that's bleak and hopeless. An America only they can save and if not them then America is forever lost in it's ways, never to grow from our failures and move forward. They won't allow us to fail and learn from those failures because they prop themselves up as saviors.

    The reason why Bill Clinton is so symbolic in the lives of so many lower income and middle class voters in America is because he felt their pain. He knew where they were coming from because he came from that. Hillary has that same reach on the middle class, largely due to her husband, but Barack and Michele Obama are just too aloof and out of the mainstream perspective of the majority of Americans in this country.

     I think this will hurt him a great deal in the coming days leading up to Pennsylvania. This gaff, and not his poor bowling skills and obvious act he put on at that bowling alley will draw the final conclusion that he isn't that voice the average American voter is looking for. What good is change and hope, and a new kind of politics to a trucker or a waitress when you talk bad about them to your big money donors and affluent pals at banquets in San Francisco? But why do I feel so suprised each time he puts his foot in his mouth? I mean George Soros of all people donate millions to his campaign, whether it's through Moveon.org or Media Matters. Soros by the way is a secular-progressive billionaire who wants to create a barrage of smear ads against John McCain.

   I look forward to a 10-16 point victory in PA. This was the exact misstep Hillary Clinton needed to get her husband's minor slip up out the news and minds of voters. If they even cared at all.

       A name we often forget about is Colin Powell. The former Sec. Of State hasn't been in the political forefront for many years now. He was the only one from the Bush Administration willing to put his reputation and his future on the line when he decided to resign as the Sec. Of State in 2005. He's a decorated Military man and he's an American hero. As an Independent I would feel more comfortable voting for Colin Powell than I would John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Sure they both have experience and both are great Americans, but Colin Powell, to me represents both experience and change. He's the change Barack Obama speaks of without Obama's unknown past and baggage,the experience of Clinton and McCain without the lobbyist cloud over his head,plus the leadership and moral code we need to steer America in the right direction. Perhaps at age 71 his time as a potential candidate has passed him by, but I think that he would have been our first black president. Whether he had decided to run in 2000, 2004, or now.