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.

Actually, using a name, as opposed to an alias, gives a person credibility.
There's a reason why letters to the editor are required to be signed, why anonymous sources are extremely rare in news stories and why columns are accompanied with a name and a photo. Stating beliefs, feelings or thought processes are much easier to do when you don't have your own identity associated with it and people just view you as some guy with an opinion. Owning your statements is a vital part to making a worthy statement, if you're nothing more than a guy, what authority does your voice have?

A real name equals credibility in the real world, which means you take responsibility for your work. The Internet world is different, thus you can post as Savage Guy and not by your real name and without the full benefit of credibility. That's an option you are choosing with your posts on this web site. By the way, when's the last time you sent me a letter to the editor?

I never thought I would say "you go girl" to Angelina Jolie but "you go girl!". She recently visited Iraq and urged that we stay in Iraq in an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post.

"My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq--and the potential consequences for our national security--are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder? . . .

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do."

Wow, that's quite a statement and quite a contrast from Barack Obama's stance. He said last summer that not even genocide was a good enough reason for us to stay in Iraq. And he would be our President?!?

I wonder how Brad Pitt feels about her stance.

Until a few days ago, many had thought that Clinton's train had run out of steam and to say that with Clinton doing well on Tuesday means that Obama's train is out of steam is just more media hype. As for McCain, time will tell how well he fares. The idea from Hillary on last night's "Daily Show" of a bi-partisan cabinet is intriguing but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that a politician will say anything for money or votes.

Interesting ... it's in the third paragraph of the MSN story, but that mention is associated with the Lt. Gov.'s name. Then it's in the fifth paragraph, where there is information about Republicans jumping on the opportunity to make hay about it.
I also find it interesting that if the governor of New York or California is in the news, it's national news. But if the governor of Iowa or some other mid-western state was in the same predicament, it wouldn't merit a mention in the national media. The same pattern is followed with weather. If there's flooding the California or a snow storm in New York, the national media makes it a top story of the evening newscast. But when it's 30 below here, maybe a mere mention.

Obama continue to rack up some pretty impressive endorsements! Check out this excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article today.

"Obama Gets Another Endorsement
Unlike Bill Richardson, Shaaban Abdel Rahim is not a superdelegate. In fact, he's not even an American voter. But he has thrown his support behind Barack Obama for president, as Slate's Christopher Beam explains:

Rahim, best known for his controversial political songs and outrageous style, will soon release a new track celebrating the end of Bush's presidency--and endorsing Obama. In an interview last week with Dar Al-Hayat, Rahim said that Obama is (roughly translated) "a good man, kindhearted, and better than Bush."
Rahim, also known by his nickname "Shaabolla," gained international notoriety in 2000 when he released the song "I Hate Israel." (The song's subtitle, "But I love Amr Moussa," refers to Egypt's former foreign minister and head of the Arab League.) Since then, he's had a rocky relationship with Egypt's censors. They allowed "Israel" to be broadcast but banned his follow-up tune praising Osama Bin Laden. (Its chorus: "Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Laden.") Other songs he has rolled out include "Hey People, It Was Only a Tower" after 9/11, "Don't Hit Iraq" in 2003, and "We Are All Out of Patience" about the Mohammed cartoon controversy in 2006.
Now, of course, Obama didn't seek out this endorsement, and presumably would prefer not to have it. But it does, as Beam notes, cast a not altogether favorable light on the argument some of Obama's supporters make that "a President Obama would change the way the world looks at America."

It also points to a curiosity in the whole practice of political endorsements. If we're supposed to care that Bill Richardson endorsed Obama, why shouldn't we also care that Shaaban Abdel Rahim did?"

Obama's former pastor and guys like Rahim continue to give us glimpses of who Obama really is and what he believes. The poor Democrats are stuck with two lousy choices and, as usual in politics, will have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

You can't make it up! Obama effectively alienated Christians and gun owners all in a matter of seconds! This might be the opening Clinton needs to regain momentum. One thing is certain. The majority of Americans that live in small towns aren't going to be voting for Obama!

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/clinton-team-lunges-at-obama-hun...

I think the mainstream media is treating both Democratic candidates very gingerly and it doesn't lean one way or another. In fact, I don't know that the mainstream media knows what to do with two popular Democratic candidates! Let's face it, the mainstream media has become complacent in terms of political coverage. The presidential candidates have been chosen long before the conventions for decades. Now we have two Democrats duking it out until the end? The mainstream media doesn't know what to do! Go for the new guy who evokes emotions in them about the beloved Kennedys? Or go for another Clinton, who is a woman who might make history and allow the headline writers to use 100 point bold type when the first woman is elected president so that they can recreate the "Dewy defeats Truman" picture that is ingrained in newspaper history. I think it's great!

Obama and Clinton want socialized medicine for the USA. Canada has socialized medicine. Toronto's Globe and Mail has a story illustrating why that is such a bad idea.

"More than 100 Canadian women with high-risk pregnancies have been sent to United States hospitals over the past year--in what a doctors' group attributes to the lack of a national birthing plan. The problem has peaked, with British Columbia and Ontario each sending a record number of women to U.S. neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Specifically, 80 B.C. women have been sent to U.S. hospitals since April 1, 2007; in Ontario, 28 have been sent since January of 2007, according to figures from the respective health ministries. André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, said the problem is due to bed closings that took place almost a decade ago, the absence of a national birthing initiative and too few staff. "Neonatologists are very stretched right now," Dr. Lalonde said in a telephone interview from Ottawa. "We're so stretched, it's kind of dangerous.""

Sounds like a great health care system! Let's try it here in the USA......not!

I would suggest what they are doing in Massachusetts, requiring everyone to have insurance and subsidizing it for those who can't afford it.