If there's one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on during this election year, it's this: both prospective First Ladies are impressive women. And they're knockouts! Whichever of these women ends up in the White House, millions of ordinary American women -- and men -- will emulate her.

That's right: Men. So which of these ladies do men see as more of a role model? Watch the short videos below, then vote.

We'll start with Michelle...



And now let's take a look at Cindy...



What about you, guys?

I think I'll let the Democrats define themselves more clearly at the convention before I comment on it. But I cannot help but regard Obama's choice of Joe Biden as a blunder. Hillary must be going nuts and thinking: "How many votes did I get and how many votes did this guy get? Is this affirmative action for white males or what?" Leave aside the fact that the choice is unimaginative, uninspired, banal. It seems that Obama is going after the hoi polloi by naming one of their undistinguished number to the ticket. Sure, Joe is a jovial character, but when is the last time he had an idea? To date his best lines have been plagiarized from others. Let's just hope he doesn't begin his convention speech, "Four score and seven years ago..."

Well, it's Obama who's at the top of the ticket and it's Obama we should be focusing on. So far it sounds like Obama is running not for president of the United States but for president of the world. Obama is a globalist, and in his Berlin speech at the Brandenburg Gate Obama decalred himself a "fellow citizen of the world." I guess this means that in conflicts between our world and other worlds, Obama is decidedly on the side of Planet Earth.

Sure, there's more to Obama's argument than his platitudes. Essentially Obama has been arguing that "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands alone." The problem with this is that there are competing ideals and competing interests in the world. China would like to be a regional bully and kick around the little countries that are in its neighborhood. Russia too would like to restore some of its czarist and later Communist hegemony. How exactly does our Chicago community activist propose to change these global realities?

Obama's answer is: through the power of prose. In his stump speeches Obama has been sounding a Robert Frost note, talking a lot about walls. According to Obama, the greatest threat in today's world is not terrorism or nuclear war. Rather, the "greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another." According to Obama, the walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic, or between natives and immigrants, or between races and religions, "cannot stand."

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall," Frost wrote, and certainly we can all share the feeling. Perhaps the best example of an unloved wall is the Berlin Wall, which came down thanks to the efforts of people like Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope, Havel, Walesa and Solzhenitsyn. Yet Frost's poem ends with these striking lines: "Good fences make good neighbors." Frost's point is that the sentimental resistance to walls must be modified by the recognition of the utility and even indispensability of walls. I'm quite sure the Obamas understand the principle quite well: they would not be happy if their neighbors' kids crossed into their yard and treated it as their own. Good fences make good neighbors.

So when should walls be taken down? Consider a contemporary example. It's possible that the wall the Israelis are building is saving Israeli lives and protecing that nation's security. It's also possible that the wall is unncessary, and that it's fueling further Palestinian grievance. My point is that the correct position is going to derive from a careful analysis of the situation on the ground. Vague and lofty talk about the badness of walls isn't going to help. Yet that is precisely the level of analysis that we are getting from Barack Obama. Now will the press stop genuflecting before this man and do him--and our democracy--the dignity of critically examining his views?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claimed over and over during the primaries that they were strong leaders who could take America in a new direction. They also claimed that George W. Bush was the worst president in US history. Then, how come they have never been able to beat him in almost any legislative battles?

This week they surrendered again. This time it was about giving immunity to telecommunication companies who broke the law to placate the Bush administration. Nearly everyone involved admits they broke the law -- otherwise they wouldn't need immunity.

I didn't rob a bank, so I don't need immunity for robbery. Everyone should have their rights, and that definitely applies to the telecom companies and the Bush administration as well, so it should be very simple for them to go into a courthouse and show there was nothing wrong with what they did. Except they can't, and that's why desperately need immunity for the crimes they have committed.

This isn't about spying on terrorists. The FISA court gives out warrants like they're growing on trees. If they spied on terrorists, it's the easiest thing in the world to show. No, this is for breaking the law and spying on Americans without a court order. Do we know who they spied on? No, and now we never will. Why? The Democrats are going to give these companies -- and by extension the Bush administration -- immunity for breaking the law.

In essence, the Democrats are giving a preemptive pardon to George Bush and everyone else that authorized and participated in this illegal surveillance program.

Now, if we only had a couple of strong leaders on the Democratic side who could stop this. Oh wait a minute, I remember two people that kept telling me how strong and capable they were. One of them even claimed that change was coming. You know when it might be a good time for change? Right about now.

Instead, Hillary Clinton is on vacation somewhere doing absolutely nothing about this immunity bill. When it's not about her career, all of a sudden she's not that moved to fight for us, our laws and our constitution. Since she's not going to be president, she's taken her ball and gone home.

And what about Obama? Nothing. Worse than nothing, because he's actually thinking about voting with the Republicans on a so-called compromise, which in the words of Sen. Feingold is nothing short of a "capitulation." Leadership you can believe in!

You think I sound angry here, you should have seen me all week on the show. If you want to see what I think of pathetic Democratic weakness, watch this (not safe for work or with kids around). The Democrats make it nearly impossible to respect them. And if you want to see what I think of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's awful record of leadership on this issue, watch this:




If you can't beat the most unpopular president of all time in a simple legislative fight like this, how can you claim to be a strong and effective leader?

Young Turks on You Tube

Young Turks producer extraordinaire Jayar Jackson has put together a musical tribute to the Democratic primary race. It starts all the way at the beginning and finishes with the climactic events of this week. Take a look:




It was wild ride. Just when you thought it was over, there would always be one more turn. But now that it has finally come to an end, it is a fond memory. Now, on to the general election!

Young Turks on You Tube

It's impossible to predict the future with certainty (obviously) and many things can change between now and November. But if things continue as they are, the Republicans are going to get steamrolled in 2008. And there would have to be some real dramatic change on the world scene for there to be a different outcome. All things being equal, they are on their way to a loss like they've never seen before.

Here is why:




Now, new polls are showing voters preferring Democrats by nearly 20 points to Republicans. That's unheard of. Not chastened by any of this, the GOP continues to head in the wrong direction. Instead of finally coming back toward the center, they keep going further and further right. By the time they get their wake up call in 2008, it's going to be too late. It's going to take them decades to recover from this mistake. They have gone so far to the right, they went right off the cliff.

Young Turks on You Tube and Watch the Live Show Here

By Jayar Jackson

The words and explanation from Senator Obama regarding his pastor's wildly unpopular and racist rant raised awareness for many, evoked conscious thought for others, but still turned some of his opponents away from him even more. How anyone could actually listen to the truth packed into this speech and conclude that his words were bogus was perplexing to me. Even after reaching out to the concerns of these very opponents, some still felt he was only telling them how much he was against them. I can understand that some don't agree with his policies, but I couldn't understand how they rejected the idea that race relations in need to be improved.

In an effort to practice what I preach, I've searched for a way to understand the reasons some still feel such resentment to the person that is thoughtfully looking for a route to move this country forward. I noticed that the most constant, blanket argument from the disagreeing mass was "Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a horrible racist." To that I thought, "I agree, good thing Wright isn't running for President. I'm glad Obama proved to us he doesn't think that way."

In attempting to put myself in the shoes of some White Americans, I've noticed that many are afraid of expressing everything they may think of minorities, particularly Black people. There have been instances where if they utter something that sounds like they're speaking negatively of a Black guy; the tag of "racist" is immediately slapped upon them. When they know they truly don't harbor racist or prejudiced feelings, and in fact dislike people that do, the worst thing in the world is to be considered just another racist White person. They've seen much of the dreadful history of truly hateful racist people in that opposed equality among the races, and they're sick of paying the price for things they never had anything to do with. Being misunderstood so quickly and easily causes feelings of resentment towards the accusing group, as they only wish these Black people could know what it's like to be in this situation. They may feel that Black people get a free pass in the game of racism. We get to say the N-Word we despise so much, while White people can't, we can dislike a White person for simply being who they are or for what some people that look like them did in the past.

When Reverend Wright opened his mouth in front of his congregation, he opened the door for the rare opportunity many White Americans took to call a racist a racist. No matter what explanations come, no matter how much Obama tried to take the discussion to a place of understanding and conclusion, Reverend Wright hasn't been lambasted enough by the man he taught, so the declaration of racist remains the only subject.

This feeling of making sure the other race experiences the pain felt by the other side of is nothing new. The country was fixated, racially divided, and somehow personally involved in OJ Simpson's "Trial of the Century." Upon hearing the verdict of not guilty, so many Black people celebrated as if we were the #16 seed of the NCAA Tournament that just took down the undefeated #1 powerhouse with a last second shot. Many Black Americans were overwhelmingly frustrated at the futility of the world's best judicial system to convict the many murderers in the past while obviously favoring White criminals over their Black victims.

The celebrating group didn't love the fact that OJ Simpson got away with killing two White people, they took delight in knowing so many people on the other side finally experienced what they had experienced so many times. Now they could say, "get over it, move on, and it wasn't your sister" the way they had been told so many times before.

Barack Obama's honest declaration that he cannot despise a pastor that brought him to his level of faith, married him to his wife, and baptized his kids kept this Reverend, an elephant-sized target in the crosshairs, right alongside him. The sooner we begin to understand each other, the sooner we will figure things out.

The barrage of clips showing Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years using incendiary and highly offensive racial language surfaced last week, threatening to leave a huge blemish on the campaign of the Democratic frontrunner. After first trying his hand at the cable news network cycle, looking to explain his affiliation with a man that could think this way about , Obama stepped out to a podium in Philadelphia on Tuesday and truly spoke to the American people. The speech was highly regarded as historic, breathtaking, and extremely thought provoking. The reason so many think so is because it's true.

Opponents to this speech entered with closed ears, looking for a way to continue to find something wrong with the situation. We wanted to know, "Does Obama believe these things" and why didn't he leave a church led by a pastor with such negative racial feelings towards White America?" Not only did he answer these important concerns, but he felt the need to explain where these horrible thoughts and feelings came from, feelings that he repeatedly said he doesn't agree with, but this was proven anyway as this speech understood the multitude of mindsets in based upon race.

The angry mob that tuned in looking to hear simply that Obama rejects and condemns this man knew that wasn't going to be enough to pacify them. That politically standard response to such a firestorm would have just led them to cry out, "why didn't he leave him alone? It's because he's racist, too!" Upon hearing a devastatingly intelligent and painfully truthful speech that relates to everyone, the only thing he left his conveniently deaf opponents was their original charges he had already addressed.

With open eyes and ears, they would have understood that his explanation of the origins of Reverend Wright's racist thoughts were from his experiences of racism and discrimination. If we don't understand where these thoughts came from, they will simply continue to produce more racists. Obama was trying to avoid this. Racists are blind to other people's lives so that they can continue to see them as sub-human. This is what Martin Luther King fought with, words and understanding. If he fought back the way many of the oppressed wanted to, these racists would have kept thinking that Black people are just wild animals that don't have the intelligence or character to reason. Their blind hate would have been validated. Understanding others kills this blindness. Obama was tearing down the root of Rev Wright's WRONG AND RACIAL feelings. He condemned them, but some don't want to understand that. When we don't try to understand, we never get anywhere.

The lack of the knee jerk answer that his opponents were expecting threw everyone for a loop. Obama pointed out that Rev. Wright brought him to his level Christianity; so obviously, this isn't all he preaches about. Do we really think that Obama would step into the Oval Office and proceed to try to oppress and keep down White people? Since we've now heard some of the things that his pastor believes, some automatically mold the two into one person. We are not considering for Rev. Jeremiah Wright for President. We have to remember what the bottom line is: What does this have to do with how he will lead the country?

Once we make up our minds to simply close them and look for something, anything wrong, we have decided to do exactly what Senator Obama courageously warned against for 37 minutes. We will have decided to be no better than the people that rejected Martin Luther King's aspirations for racial tensions to be lessened through words that lead to understanding. Are we going to listen to Barack Obama's words or will we close our eyes and ears to a way to move forward in this country?

Another state, another victory for Senator Barack Obama. With Mississippi's votes counted, the man that makes the word hope sound like an ice cold glass of water after more than 7, going on 8 years in the desert, has seemingly taken the momentum right back from the hands of Senator Clinton. Over the last two weeks, this political see-saw of a race has supporters for each candidate on edge. These two front runners have the Democratic faithful up in arms over every word or insinuation that they or one of their staffers has to say.

Geraldine Ferraro, the first female vice presidential candidate back in 1984 and current fundraiser for Clinton has become the latest to thoughtlessly stick her head in the lions den with idiotic statements. She asserted last Friday that if Barack Obama was a White man, he would not be in the position of having a 130 pledged delegate lead in the race; that he is lucky to be who he is.

It seems that every time I assume that people in prominent and influential positions got there due to their intelligence, logical reasoning, and life experiences, I get decked by 6^th grade-level statements like these. Even if she is foolish enough to believe that Obama's "Blackness" is the main reason for his voters' love for his message, she has to have enough brains to realize that saying this is definitely the wrong way to go. When I was four years old, I was naïve enough to think that my mother could make time go by faster. Although my mother never actually made the boredom that was the Flintstones go off sooner only to bring Tom & Jerry to my anticipating heart right away, I still believed it. This deep rooted adolescent ignorance still didn't prompt me to go tell my friend next door that my mother is the 1984 version of TiVo and that he'll never guess how Jerry got out of THIS jam! Common sense asked me, "You don't REALLY believe that, do you?"

The point of campaigning is to convince the people that your candidate is the person that will do the best job in office, (or to trick them into thinking so). It seems quite obvious that pointing out Obama's African American background as the reason many people are enamored with him would not pick up support against him, but turn more people off to her entire message. (He is actually from a multiracial heritage of a Kenyan father and White American mother from Kansas). Has the frustration of battling him really made these politicians that carefully choose their every word lose this thought process?

After a couple days of being called a racist, an idiot, and not worthy of her position with the Clinton campaign, many would think that this common sense Ferrero left on the kitchen table that morning would crawl back into her ear. Sadly, Tuesday's response to the outcry attempted to put her in the victim's role in this "racist" conversation. The assertion that she is being attacked from all angles because she is White won't make anyone forget that she began the discussion by bringing up his ethnicity in the first place.

In the end, I don't believe that Geraldine Ferraro is a racist; that she thinks Black men are simply lucky to have the opportunity to work their asses off in order to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. She doesn't really think that he was lucky enough to be elected an Illinois State Senator before losing a bid for a House seat and moving on to his U.S. Senate seat. She is simply a person trying to understand the reasons so many Americans are looking to him as the way to help move the country forward. After scratching a groove in her head and scouring his background with the hope she'll find a mind-control device wired to so many Americans, she mindlessly resorted to the only tangible thing, his appearance, not his substance. Is this why she thinks Hillary has made it this far; simply because we love the novel idea of a female President?

Open your eyes and face reality Geraldine, the Flintstones are still on and mom can't do anything about it. The big cat will soon throw Fred out on the porch and he'll have no clue how to get back in, don't worry.

The complaint that Barack Obama has had an easy ride from the press is not unwarranted. (It's not a slam dunk charge, either, considering all the hysterical rumormongering surrounding Obama's middle name HUSSEIN and his supposed MUSLIM religion.)

But now that Obama's the clear front runner, it's time to start picking him apart the way Hillary's been dissected. So where do we start? Well he has a mole on his face, near his nose. That's something.

His middle name is Hussein. His experience in foreign policy is virtually nil, and it shows. Some of his policy statements border on the ridiculous. No man manages to say nothing with such aplomb. And yet, for all his evident weaknesses, Obama has become virtually untouchable. The frustration in Hillary Clinton's camp is palpable as she helplessly concedes front-runner status to the Black Adonis from Illinois.

What's going on here? There are a lot of theories about Obama's success, yet two of the main ones seem to have escaped notice. First, Obama is enjoying African American immunity. This idea that if you are a black person you are above criticism is especially strong among liberal Democrats. These are the people, after all, who invented political correctness. From this point of view, if a black man is reasonably articulate his statements have to be treated as Shakespearean genius. If he seems comparatively decent he must be celebrated as a paragon of humanity. The slightest criticism of such an individual is seen as harsh, carping, unfair. Thus when the Clintons quite reasonably disputed Obama's repeated invocations of Martin Luther King, pointing out that it took presidential action to give policy significance to some of King's ideas, the liberal genuflection camp expressed immediate outrage. How dare Hillary state obvious facts when those facts might tarnish Obama's moral and political halo?

By the way this African American immunity won't completely insulate Obama in the general election. If he gets the nomination the level of scrutiny will certainly increase. Even the lapdogs in the media are going to have to start asking some tough questions. And Republicans aren't terrified of criticizing a political figure just because he happens to be black.

A second factor behind Obama's success is this. A majority of Democratic voters, and even some leading figures in the party, seem to have quietly figured out that Republicans were right all along about the Clintons. For years no Democrat could bring himself to admit this. Democrats were in full partisan mode, defending the Clintons, covering up for their shameful deeds, putting on a straight face while mouthing the Clinton lies in public. But all of this seems to have left an unpalatable taste in the Democratic mouth. Secretly, Democrats know that this is a pair of self-serving opportunists who will do anything, even destroy the Democratic party, in order to have power. David Geffen in his early endorsement of Obama blurted out a widely-held sentiment when he said that while lying may come naturally to politicians, the Clintons have taken prevarication and dissembling to a whole new level.

Disgusted with the Clintons, and fearful of bringing this dysfunctional couple back into the Oval Office, Democrats now have an alternative. Backing Obama not only makes Democrats feel cool, it also makes them feel clean.

As a Republican, I confess I'm enjoying Hillary's political frustration. She can't blame this one on the "vast right wing conspiracy."

My mom, who lives in Mumbai, India, has trouble understanding American politics. Recently she asked me to give her a brief summary of what's going on.

I explained, "There are two parties in American politics. There is a stupid party and there is an evil party."

In an attempt to put my own cards on the table, I confessed, "I am a proud member of the stupid party."

Then I added, "Sometimes, American politicians do things that are both stupid and evil. Those things we call bipartisanship."

I was kidding, of course, but the humor arises out of the element of truth in this description. Consider the charge of stupidity. Would the Republican Party be in the confused state it is now if Bush had appointed a vice president who was electable and actually sought the nomination?

I'm not saying Bush shouldn't have appointed Cheney the first time around. Cheney inspires irrational and paranoid loathing on the left--he's Darth Vader for the Michael Moore set--and this alone was good reason to keep him reasonably close to the Oval Office, not to mention the nuclear arsenal.

But when Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent who would have an inside track to the nomination and who could claim up-close experience in the responsibilities of governance. If Bush had done this, he would have shown both foresight and concern about the future of the GOP.

Now let's turn to the evil party. What other term is appropriate to describe a party where Ted Kennedy's endorsement is actually counted as a positive? This is the moral equivalent of Republican candidates rushing to make campaign commercials with Larry Craig. Notice how the moral scoundrels in the GOP are typically hounded out while the moral scoundrels in the Democratic party generally continue to enjoy their prestige and good standing.

Any party with a sense of decency would ignore and marginalize Ted Kennedy. Besides, what constituency does this man represent? Is it really that important to lock in the votes of dissolute, philandering seniors who still go down to Florida for Spring break?

So here's the situation. Kennedy offers his blessings to Obama and offers to say some black masses for him. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp claims that Obama turned away while Hillary was shaking Kennedy's hand because she is a woman.

Given the irrelevance of gender to this situation, the Hillary team's reaction is downright comic. Yet the shrews at the National Organization for Women are echoing the cries of sexism from the Hillary camp. All that remains is for Obama to counter with the race card and accuse Hillary of making such charges because he is black.

As the election gets closer, I'll try to give my mom a more detailed account of the issues at stake. But I think I've given her enough to keep her informed, and entertained, at least through the primaries.

In the midst of record profits for oil companies we are giving them a $14 billion subsidy. That's insane. That's money straight out of our pockets and into Exxon-Mobil's pockets. Outside of politicians who get their elections financed by these guys, no one in the country should be in favor of this. This is not a conservative or liberal position, this is plain old robbery.

Our system is broken. The politicians funnel the money into these industries. The industries hire lobbyists to funnel the money back to the politicians. And we're the ones who get screwed. Remember, it's our money they're handing out:




And now, because of this insane economic stimulus package, businesses are going to get another $50 billion in tax breaks. This money doesn't grow on trees. It's money that's going over from our taxes to the corporations. Dumb, dumb, dumb idea. So, of course, both Democrats and Republicans agree to it. In fact, they have never agreed to an idea so quickly. That's how you can judge how dumb a political idea is, by how quickly the politicians agree to it.

Watch More TYT Here

I thought this was a pretty good speech from Tim Ryan, problem is if you look at the first second of the clip...He's speaking to an empty room. Where is everybody?

- I love this guy, I watched this clip years ago and waited for something to happen, nothing did.

On Tuesday night's Democratic debate, Tim Russert asked an annoying and boneheaded question. He asked the three candidates to describe their greatest strengths and weaknesses. A summary of their answers are below:




Come on , he has to know they're not going to give real answers. Imagine if Edwards said, "I just get drunk too often and I'm kind of a mean drunk. I wind up yelling at my wife and kids." Or Hillary said, "Sometimes I get so mad when people don't do exactly what I tell them that I get a little violent with them, like the time I threw the lamp at Bill in the White House." Or Obama said, "I just fart too much. It annoys everyone around me because they're real stinkers."

Of course, no one is going to say anything that would be even mildly incriminating. This question is annoying because it puts the candidates in a spot where they have to say things that are so obviously untrue that it's embarrassing to look at. No one wants to hear about how they're too nice or work too hard for people who are in need. Any rookie interviewer would know that this would be the result. Please don't subject us to this nonsense.

Watch More Young Turks Here