Then, there are these words which lie at the heart of what I consider my Creator's mission for me to be:

"For I was hungry and you gave me meat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came unto me.....Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me."

Words that ask the best of us stir human beings to actions they never thought they were capable of; such words give substance to our dreams of what we can become.

I became an activist Democrat -  instead of an angry critic of the status quo - because a man named Howard Dean said, "You have the power. You can take your country back."

Beward Senator Clinton....Barack Obama knows the power of words. I'm not sure that you do.

I think maybe we read different things into that statement.  What I heard was that talk is not the same as action.  And can we not all agree on that?  It is a more eloquent way of saying talk is cheap.

The words of Roosevelt and Churchill are inspiring for sure.  But surely, you don't think that they account for or are the sole cause of the American or British response in World War II?  That would discount the deeds of millions of Americans and British (not to forget the greater Commonwealth) citizens.  

What about the members of CORE who organized the "Freedom Rides"?  What would have been the difference had they just chosen to pontificate in Washington instead of bravely driving into the heart of darkness to face down racism?  Their action and the torment they endured were louder than words, and they were heard across the globe.  

So, I think Hillary is quite right here.  Words are indeed not actions.  Words may inspire, but the real test is how you utilize that inspiration through action.

As an aside on Lincoln, what about him?  For all of his eloquent speeches, he was not able to unite a deeply divided country.  It was through military force, not speeches, that slavery was ended in the South and the country was reunited.  Again action trumping words.

The truth is, actually, words do inspire, words do help people get involved, words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health-care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy.

Don't discount that power.

Because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't.

I'm running for president because I want to tell them, "Yes, we can," and that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers.

Cause clearly you've taken his technique of referring to Obama as Osama.

Real mature.

That quip was totally gratuitous and offensive.  It's what I'd expect of some Republicans, and the more childish among them at that.

Using that type of language is completely unacceptable, borderline "bannable" here at RK.  

n/t

Speaking of "primary issues", that one word, Billary, pretty much sums up all the double-edged sword issues with trying to get Hillary, despite her evident smarts and strengths, elected.  

Form should follow function, but, with most Americans, it's function follows form.  And therefore the screaming dissonance of Hillary Clinton trying to coopt the word change while standing between Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright.

Note to Lowell:  "Osama" and "f*ck" aside, let vote-left continue to argue his case and let's have at it.  Over and above his apparent hatred of Obama, vote-left seems to suffer from some serious ironic deficiency, so this could be very entertaining.  

is trolling by any standard.

I'm in total agreement with you on the "Osama"/Obama thing and am all for maintaining decorum, but let's hear more, if vote-left is capable of getting past the juvenile, and see where all this fury is coming from.

But I'm not putting up with this "Osama" crap on RK.

And won't admit to having been wrong.

That was action, not words.  Kind of an important action, any way you might want to look at, given all her trumpeting of 35 years of get-'er-done action.  So should she be held accountable for her actions or should we ignore her actions and heed instead her word-de-jour, change?

Words vs. action.  Here's one glaring example:
Obama: Iraq.
Clinton: Iraq.
The difference between the two candidates is a lot more than words.  It's action.  In Clinton's case, deliberate, consistent, misguided action (as well as a lot of equally misguided words).

Also, let's look at the substance of your accusation of "aggressive confrontational tactics," specifically, "two men, Obama and Edwards, ganging up on one woman, Hillary," reminding you of "terrorism."

I find that accusation just as offensive as the Osama comment.  Hillary Clinton graduated at the top of her class from Yale Law School.  She practiced law for many years at a time when there were very few women lawyers.  She's been First Lady and a Senator, in addition to other important positions.  She is more than able to defend herself, and her positions.

It is more than a little galling to those who have worked to break down the very real barriers that existed in the past to suggest that Hillary Clinton may get the "vapors" if she has to answer the legitimate criticism of two men of equal standing who simply do not agree with her.  And to compare those men to terrorists because they dare treat this woman as an equal is just beyond the pale.

I'm sure Elizabeth Edwards could explain this to you, and to Hillary Clinton, much better than I can.  Maybe Michelle Obama could help.

in reference to shallow "words".

If "words" were so unimportant, why is it that her folks would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars poll testing phrases such as: "Words are not action and as beautifully presented and as passionately felt as they are, they are not action" before using them in a debate?

I was surprised to see nobody linked to a transcript in a discussion about one sentence in a long debate and what it meant.

So here's a link to a transcript.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

Here's the quote in context:

SPRADLING: ... that would give us some guide as to what kind of president you're going to be?

EDWARDS: Absolutely. I could tell you exactly one -- I'll give you one very specific example, a big example.

When the Democrats finally took over the United States Senate, the first issue that was brought to the table was the so-called patient's bill of rights, so that patients and families could make their own health care decisions.

EDWARDS: What's happening now is insurance companies are running all over people. I mean, the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, which a lot of the audience will be familiar with -- 17-year-old girl who lost her life a couple of weeks ago because her insurance company would not pay for a liver transplant operation.

She had health insurance, but the insurance company wouldn't pay for it. They finally caved in a few hours before she died.

We need a president who will take these people on. What we did -- and I didn't do it alone, don't claim to have done it alone -- but I, Senator McCain, who was here earlier, Senator Kennedy, the three of us wrote the Patient's Bill of Rights. The three of us took on the powerful insurance industry and their lobby, every single day of the fight for the Patient's Bill of Rights. And we got that bill through the United States Senate and got it passed.

EDWARDS: And I'm proud of having done that.

But that's just an example of why this battle is personal for me. You know, we need a president who believes deeply -- in here -- believes deeply in this battle.

And it is personal for me. When I see these lobbyists roaming around Washington, D.C., taking all the politicians to cocktail parties, I mean, the picture I get in my head is my father and my grandmother going in that mill every day so that I could have the chances I've had.

Where is their voice in this democracy? When are they going to get heard? They need a president who will stand up for them, and so does every American who's listening to this debate.

OBAMA: I just want to add, I agree with John, which is why I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals for members of Congress...

EDWARDS: Good idea.

OBAMA: ... because -- and some of them complained. They said...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: They said, "Where am I going to eat?"

GIBSON: They can now buy food for members of Congress if the members of Congress are standing up. That's my understanding of what the rules have changed. You can't sit down and eat, but you can stand up and eat. Tell me why that's change.

OBAMA: Here's what we did. They can't buy meals. They can't provide gifts. They can no longer lend corporate...

GIBSON: They can have huge parties for you as long as you're standing up.

EDWARDS: They can't eat as much if they're standing up, Charlie.

OBAMA: That's true.

Look, we are now disclosing if they're bundling money for members of Congress. They've got to disclose who they're bundling money from and who they're giving it to.

But here's the critical point that I want to make. Not only does this have to be personal, John -- and I completely agree. When I think about health care, I think about my mother, who when she was dying of cancer had to read an insurance form because she had just gotten a new job and they were trying to figure out whether or not this was going to be treated as a preexisting condition, and whether or not they would pay her medical bills.

So I've seen the costs of a health care system that is broken in very personal terms.

But what I also believe, if we're going to bring about real change, then we have to bring in the American people. We have to bet on them.

OBAMA: And that's what's been lost. People, I think, feel that they are not heard at all, they are not involved. And the only way we're going to muster enough power over the long term to actually get something done is if we've got a working majority, which is why it's so important...

(CROSSTALK)

CLINTON: Can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute? Because I think that it is important to make some kind of an assessment of these statements.

You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the patient bill of rights through the Senate -- it never got through the House. One of the reasons that Natalie may well have died is because there isn't a patient's bill of rights. We don't have a patient's bill of rights.

EDWARDS: Because George Bush killed it.

CLINTON: Well, that's right. He killed it.

So, we've got to have a plan and a real push to get it through.

You know, when it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies.

So, I think it's important that all of us be held to the same standard -- that we're all held accountable.

CLINTON: You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare.

Now we're all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.

So, you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.

You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the over-due influence that they have in our government.

And, you know, probably nobody up here has been the subject of more incoming fire from the Republicans and the special interests. So I think I know exactly what I'm walking into. And I am prepared to take them on.

(CROSSTALK)

SPRADLING: Senator, does that mean that you're further down the road than your opponents in this? Or are you saying that you can do things that these folks can't do, when it comes to being an agent of change?

CLINTON: Absolutely. Because I've been an agent of change. You know, you go back 35 years, you know, I worked to help make the case for the law that, thankfully, required that public schools give an education to children with special needs. I worked to reform education and health care in Arkansas against, you know, some pretty tough odds.

In the White House, I helped to create, you know, health care for kids and, you know, reform a lot of the other programs -- like taking on the drug companies.

SPRADLING (?): And to be clear, they can't. You're saying they can't.

CLINTON: Well, I'm not saying that -- I'm only making my case, that this is what I have done.

is that it was valid for Clinton to point out that the patients bill of rights which Edwards said was the achievement he was most proud of as a Senator, did not even pass the House.  I don't know if her criticism of Obama, regarding the energy bill of 2005, was valid or not.  Anyway, it is reasonable for any of these candidates to pose the question, who do you think can actually deliver change as President?  None of them has a compelling case to make on that score.

"In the beginning there was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Nothing which was created was created except by the Word." -Paraphrase from the Bible

People who lack certain talents often belittle them in others.

". . . by their fruits ye shall know them."

God has commanded us to examine the fruit.
 

but faith comes first. Words can inspire that.

I didn't want to have to say this, but I think words misused can be a terrible thing, -such as when Hillary said "I was against this war (Iraq) from the beginning" in a recent interview.

Its one thing for her to refuse to apologize for making a mistake about the war. Its quite another thing altogether for her to lie about her position as I heard her do in an interview a couple of months ago. People like me just don't forget things like that.

Are you sure that Hillary Clinton said that?  There were articles in The Post quoting Bill Clinton as saying that.  I have not seen that from Hillary; so, I am curious to where it was made or I could find information about it.

I heard that in a live radio interview on (I think) NPR. Believe me it was Hillary, not Bill. It may not be written down, but it was spoken in her standard way, beginning with the phrase "you know". So it went "You know I was against this war from the beginning".

Every child needs to feel important, they need to feel that they're worthy in somebody's eyes, they need to feel that unconditional love that they should get from their family, but they can also get through faith. Faith gives us a broadly held belief in the importance of basic moral principles: the need to care for each other, the need to protect the vulnerable, to refrain from violence, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. And it also can provide a motivating force for action.

People often ask me whether I'm a praying person, and I say I was lucky enough to be raised in a praying family, and learned to say my prayers as a very young child, and remembered seeing my late father by the side of his bed until his very last days saying his prayers. So I was fortunate. But I also say that had I not been a praying person that after I'd been in the White House for a few months, I would have become a praying person.

So faith can provide that bedrock and it is important that we have the right debate in our country. It needs to be one carried out by people who understand what our objectives should be. We want to live together, we want to respect each other's beliefs, and that means respecting the faith of others and enabling people to live out their faith in the public square, and that means also providing services to people, so that we have a diversity of services available.

http://tinyurl.com/26rb7e

One thing which really impressed me about Obama which may have flown past many people was when the moderator mentioned the poll which showed that people thought Obama was more likeable than Clinton. Clinton made a joke out of it, but Obama said very quietly to Hillary "You're likeable enough." Not only did he refuse to capitalized on this comment, he felt empathy for her and stuck up for her by giving her a compliment on national TV. Now THAT is character.

Really?  You would consider it a compliment if someone said you were likeable enough?

Sure, especially if it came from an opponent who had the opportunity to just sit there and gloat, but decided to take the high road instead.

j_wyatt's caricature of Hillary's arguments in the debate as "screaming dissonance" is the epitome of the garbage spewed daily by the likes of Rush, Sean, Neil, and yes, even Chris Matthews, a supposed even-handed pundit (who, by every word he utters about her, hates Hillary and Bill and longs for those days of Camelot--forgetting the moral trash of those days which reporters routinely covered up, and forgetting about the abject failures of the JFK administration, only forgotten because he was murdered and beatified).  Maybe my ear canals are filled with carnuba, but I haven't heard cackling, shrill, etc.  And I'm not, NOT, a Hillary lover.

I'm not in love with Hillary and her authoriztion vote and her waffling about it, among other things, but let's get real.  As an above respondent said, all H said was that words were NOT action, and that she had supplied change/action in the past.  She most certainly DID NOT say that words had NO meaning--she's not that stupid, you know.  I'm sure she is well aware of every line quoted above by our teaching guide, teacherken, but let's get a reality check here, as she said.

Further, anyone my age has heard the words of Obama spoken many times in the past by countless politicians, and when some of them were elected and had to face up to the factual life of a politician (remember "the art of compromise"), their brave words clashed with reality and the deals they necessarily made came back to haunt them.  Lucky the politician who gets elected President and has a Congress of the same party--no worry about vetos, no worry about committees screwing over all your actions, etc.  But that is a rarity in recent times, so again, let's not cut Hillary slack but at least be fair to her and not mis-parse her words.  We have the Right doing that already.  Remember what Claudius said in "I Claudius," in stuttering speech:  "Is not WHAT I say more important than the way I say it [a paraphrase]?"  I like Obama, but wispy nebulous promises  no matter the beauty of the presentation cannot replace the record of a person, and Hillary is perfectly correct when she states that, albeit it  shrilly and dissonantly.

And as for that quote, "By their fruits ye shall know them," I think the references to log cabin republicans and Larry Craig have already been overdone and even I, the bad punster, would not go that far (well.....).

"j_wyatt's caricature of Hillary's arguments in the debate as "screaming dissonance" is the epitome of the garbage spewed by the likes of Rush, Sean, Neil ..."

Say what?  And as to who here is spewing Rush-like or Sean-like, this is what was posted:

"And therefore the screaming dissonance of Hillary Clinton trying to coopt the word change while standing between Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright."

Sorry I misread and misinterpreted, and too quickly, your meaning, in the context of your comment, of screaming dissonance--it was a gut reaction on my part after reading and hearing so many references to Hillary's cackle, including Novack's today in his column, that I get very Pavlovian upon seeing any such reference.