whose issues?

So here's another question: why do the dumb hicks get so hung up on such irrelevant topics, like some irrelevant lie, or some questionable association? Why can't we talk about issues?

Well, I'd like to see more argument on issues - I have said before, I think Clinton should be throwing her issues out there every chance she gets.

But that doesn't mean that character issues such as lies or contradictions are irrelevant. One measure of where a voter ought to cast a vote says one should vote for the candidate you distrust the least.

There are at least three issues here:

1) does this guy have significant flaws of character or judgment?

2) does this guy intend to represent me, or will he be more like a political enemy to me once he is actually in office?

3) what can be learned about how this guy goes about doing whatever it is he does? Can I live with his approach toward getting things done?

That's actually very important to a lot of people, especially those lower down on the socioeconomic ladder, who are at risk of being tricked on doubletalk about 'issues'.

When you are trying to raise a family during tough times (or even without a family, if you're working two or more jobs), you don't have time to follow the issues well enough to make the sort of informed judgment needed. You have to choose who ya trust and throw your loyalty in and pray you chose wisely.

I have to question the judgment of anyone who seriously thinks Wright and Ayers should be considered irrelevant, because they seriously interfere with Obama's narratives - about who he is and about what he intends. But even if one argues that the questions should be irrelevant, there is the fact that the Republicans are going to use this in their attack ad machine, and we need to see if Obama has what it takes to stand up under the assault.

Doesn't look good, as measured by last night.