On a cold night, Boston warms to Obama

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for “gang stalking” to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

So was it hundreds of people as Scott Hellman says or thousands as the Obama camp bragged?

After last night's event in Boston in support of Barack Obama (and the unparalleled privilege of shaking the man's hand), it is with renewed vigor that I re-assert my enthusiastic and undying support of Senator Obama's bid for the White House. Ever since he came on the national scene in 2004 there's been something about him that's just--different. There's an integrity, an honesty, a spirit about this man that you just don't find every day in Washington. In fact, it's uncommon to find it anywhere, in any human being. The critics all along have been saying that his message of hope and change, though inspiring, is completely naive and hopelessly idealistic, and not nearly enough to sustain a credible run for President. I've been saying all along that that's precisely why we NEED someone like Barack Obama to shake that way of thinking to the core.

This country has reinvented itself before. There was a time when idealism was admired, not scorned. When out-of-the-box thinking was the hallmark of the American spirit, not something to be feared or mocked. When a person could talk about the commonality of the American experience without being ridiculed. People think nostalgically of JFK, of FDR, of Lincoln. What would our country be if these men had simply toed the party line, had done only what was politically expedient and popular, had not asked tough questions, had accepted the status quo?

Perhaps nobody has said it better yet than Andrew Sullivan in a recent article in the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama :

"Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you."

And the well-circulated NY Times article by Frank Rich echos this sentiment. There is absolutely no reason to assume anymore that America is somehow incapable of a radical transformation in the way it does politics, and this very well could be the time when it happens. And, if it is, why shouldn't Obama be the man to lead it

I was there last night -- the space was filled to capacity. It was thousands.