I'm getting a little weary of hearing about people voting for Clinton because they don't like Obama's supporters - it's come up a number of times in this thread over the last few months - so I'm not targeting Ray here - but I hear it in the media too, and frankly? 

That's only because you are looking at it as people voting for Clinton, purely because of an Obama supporter (such as Rev. Wright).

That isn't the case.  For me, it had nothing to do at all with Rev. Wright, but instead, Obama's support of him for 20 years.  It's Obama's actions that force me to vote Clinton (or McCain), even if those actions are inactions through his involvement with others.

Let's change the discussion a bit -- who here thinks Obama should debate Clinton before next Tuesday.  I do.

I do as well.  On the condition that it is an unmoderated free-for-all form between just the 2 of them.  Otherwise, we don't need the eleventy-billionth soft shoe moderation debate.

QUOTE: I like to think it's serious....  But you always get a better, more rounded opinion of things if you see all sides.  Good, bad, and Fox News.

A good point, lost on many when the topic of 'Faux' News is discussed on forums like this.I find the constant bashing of Fox News 'just because it's Fox'(or because of Murdoch, or because 'Republicans am stoopid', or whatever) on other forums, to be damned tiresome. If someone has watched it and doesn't like it, fair enough, but if they  never watch it, and just regurgitate the criticisms of other people who never watch it, then they can't form a valid opinion of it. 

Anyone calling themselves 'open-minded' who refuses to watch Fox 'on principle', is kidding themselves. At least know what it is you're dumping on before dumping on it.

(BTW...how many here who don't watch normally Bill O'Reilly will do so tonight?Or is Keith Olberman going to call Hillary 'the worst person in the world' for doing 'The Factor'?)

Also, as far as you know, I did base MY opinion on fact.  I do read and go through many news sites, including CNN and Fox.  I saw the comments made about Clinton crying.  The prevailing sentiment was that she was more than likely faking it.  I agreed. 

All I'm saying is it takes is doing some reading before anyone can base an opinion on it.  I did that, and I will continue to do that. 

I'm calling bullshit on this argument.  You cannot base your opinion on this issue on fact because no one, except Hillary Clinton (and maybe some of her close advisors) knows whether her tears were an honest emotion or a staged event.  There are no empirical facts to research! No testimony, no comments from staffers about a planned event.  Just opinion from witnesses, commentators and journalists.  Your opinion, like theirs, is based on your read of the moment, colored by your feelings about Senator Clinton.  And you are totaly justified in your opinon.  But when you point to other opinions to somehow justify yours and make it appear like these opinions are facts you cross the line.  No one except Hillary Clinton can confirm your position.  She's the only one who knows. 

Ray called you out on your opinon. You could have responded by saying "She has credibility issues and thats what I think" and I think it would have ended there.  But you have have tried to point to various blogs and news reports with similar opinions to yours to create the image of fact.  Then when pressed you take a holier than thou attitude and continue your condescending tone toward those who don't share your opinion, without knowing what they have read or reviewed. Rather than say "my bad" or let it go you make a specious point about reading before forming an opinion as though someone who disagrees with you must be uninformed or misinformed.   Such points do not further the debate and they do not serve you well. 

"Anyone calling themselves 'open-minded' who refuses to watch Fox 'on principle', is kidding themselves. At least know what it is you're dumping on before dumping on it."

I watched Fox news for a while after 9/11 (for as long as it remained on our subscription package) and found that there were too many programs where the presenters would sit around and congratulate themselves on their ignorant dismissal of the complexity of international issues. Too many instances of people just repeating stock "patriotic" phrases and other people nodding vigorously in agreement. Big turn off. Liked Bill O'reilly, though. Even if he could probably perform his own colonoscopy without additional equipment.

And I never found it to be fair and balanced either.

To be fair, I found Air America to be a bit sensationalist, too, but Al Franken, despite his obvious and declared biases, at least seemed to be willing to listen to the opposing side and correct himself when he was wrong.

It all just seemed so strange in comparison to the more civil political discourse we get here on national radio and tv- channels on domestic issues.

Kevin Brown wrote: Also, as far as you know, I did base MY opinion on fact.

Your opinion was based on reading a bunch of other people's opinions, Kevin, and that is decidedly not based in fact at all.  Ray certainly has an point; I could do all the research I would ever care to do on the topic of whether John Byrne has stopped caring about his work.  I could come up with more than a dozen articles and supporting "evidence" that would indicate just that but, in the end, it's all opinion. Just because I can come up with multiple articles that support my contention doesn't ever make it fact because it's a supposition based upon knowledge you just can't have unless you've spoken to the man. In the case of JB's work, I have spoken with him many times about it, I know he still cares every bit as much as he did 30 odd years ago...maybe even more...and so my opinion on John's work is actually fact.  You can't make a factual claim about Hillary's crying unless you've spoken to her.

QUOTE:  The prevailing sentiment was that she was more than likely faking it.  I agreed.

Cool.  You agreed with the prevailing sentiment...which is all conjecture and opinion.  Not fact, no matter how much you want to paint it as such.

For me, it had nothing to do at all with Rev. Wright, but instead, Obama's support of him for 20 years.  It's Obama's actions that force me to vote Clinton (or McCain), even if those actions are inactions through his involvement with others.

Well, wait - wait, what support?  Tell me, in your own words, how he specifically supported him, and how it would reflect on his potential Presidency - personally, him being a member of his congregation doesn't mean anything about his character to me, but you seem pretty convinced, so maybe you can shine some light on something I missed or am overlooking.

You've noted upthread that you're more interested in a conservative Dem, and thus, Hillary is your choice, and, thus, if you're basing your opinion on Obama's voting record, his written word, and his stated plans, I understand your support of Hillary over Obama.  If the fact that he was a part of a particular church has anything to do with it - that's where I'm confused.

I can't begin to understand what someone gets from Church - I'm an atheist - but I did attend services as a kid - my grandmother was the head of a chuch choir, so I'd go with her - mainly to enjoy her music - and here's a few things I remember - there were a number of preachers - there wasn't one "voice" - is this the same at Obama's church?  Was Wright one of a few preachers there?  Also, in my church, they would bring up politics I didn't agree with - but I'd tune it out and enjoy the sermons for what I could get out of them.  Likewise, in life - I work with people, am in a Masonic Lodge with people, interact with people on the internet, etc, all of whom have different political views than me, and in many cases, views that I find outrageous and frankly destructive to America, but I take it with a grain of salt and assume the person is more than just the political talk, and enjoy them for the other things they are...

I'm discovering that, to be a "good American", I'm doing it wrong.  (McCarthy is looking up from hell and smiling!)

Finally - I heard the most amazing thing on the right wing radio this morning - a show defended Obama's involvement in the church, based on what Obama wrote in his book - noting that when he was searching for a chuch, and found Wright's chuch, Wright told him that he has a huge congregation made up of all kinds of people - white, black, left, right, etc, and he wanted to bring them together.  The hosts suggested that, based on looking at Obama's political record, he probably was in the church working the middle - not concerned in particular with Wright's crazy talk, but being united with all kinds of people.

Good for those radio hosts for seeing things rationally, and based in factual evidence, for a change!