On April 16th, Barack Hussein Obama and Hilary Rodham Clinton engaged in their 6000th debate. The critics, donating their left-wing criticism, complained that Obama was questioned way "too hard." The bloggers complained that the questioners didn't base their questions on the issues that matter: the war, health care, the economy, immigration etc. Obama supporters shouted that these types pillory are exactly what their candidate is trying to stop; to try to "Fix Washington," with "Change."
    First of all, I want to start by saying that the issues should obviously be the major concern in these debates. They are the areas that need to be addressed, it is unquestionable. But the fact is, with this Democratic race, Obama and Clinton's positions on the issues have been made very clear: Socialized Healthcare, higher taxes, get out of Iraq, flaccid immigration policy, and abortion. We all get it. They have had an inordinate amount of debates about the issues, and when it comes down to it, they are both virtually tantamount in their ideologies.
    So now the question comes down to: does character matter? Sure it does, character always matters. So let's look at Barack Obama. He has attended a racist, anti-American church for 20 years. He has a "friendly" relationship with Bill Ayers, who was a member of the Weather Underground Group that set bombs in the Pentagon and Capital buildings.  He calls the blue-collar people of Pennsylvania bitter, and says that they "CLING" to their guns and religion on account of this bitterness. And then there's his wife. She says that this has been the first time in her adult life that she's been proud of her country. The first time.
    So let's first look at the rebuttals to the Reverend Wright controversy: Barack Obama never attended any of the specific masses when the reverend went on his litany.
Rebuttal to rebuttal: False.(file:///Users/frizzo/Desktop/Editorials/Obama%20Attended%20Hate%20America%20Sermon.html)
    That Wright was like family to Obama, and that he could not simply abandon him, comparing him to his grandmother. Rebuttal to rebuttal: You cannot choose your grandparents, you most certainly can choose your pastor.
    That the comments given by Wright do not reflect Obama's views. Rebuttal to rebuttal: He was at the church for 20 years, and he obviously had no problem with the comments made by his pastor.
 
    So now to Bill Ayers. Who is he? He's a terrorist. On 9/11 2001, Ayers told the New York Times said “I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.” They served on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago together, an organization dedicated to "increasing opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them," as it says in the foundation's mission statement (That sounds good right? So how the hell did a terrorist bomber mange his way on that board?). And to top it all off, Barack's campaign declared that they had a "friendly" relationship.
   
    Rebuttal: Barack said, during the debate, that "“The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.” Rebuttal to rebuttal: This is ridiculous and I can't believe that people are actually buying into this excuse. That is like saying that because Hitler killed 11 million people when I was 8, that it is just and conventional to associate with him. It's ludicrous. I know that might be an extreme example, but you understand my point. Actions are actions, and bombings are bombings, regardless of when they occur.
   
    Next he calls the blue collar citizens of Pennsylvania "bitter," in that they cling to their guns and religion in an economic depression. He said this in San Francisco, behind close doors. Well this is an easy one, and even Barack has essentially said it was a obtuse comment.
    Rebuttal: He didn't really have one. He said it was a mistake.
    Rebuttal to Rebuttal: I just want to say that I live in that area of Pennsylvania, and the people here find religion as a way to release, not to cling.

    Finally, there is Michelle Obama, Barack's wife. She was quoted as saying that"for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."
    No rebuttal here, for it has not been seen as that big of a deal. However, her statement implies so many things.
    She is not proud of winning the Cold War? Not the fact that we feed and defend the world, not that we lead in science and technology research? Not the fact that she and her husband were able to go to Ivy League schools before embarking on extremely lucrative careers? Not the fact that we help out in disasters wherever they strike in the world? And there is so much more that this country has done in her lifetime that is more ebullient than Barack Obama's running for President. I just do not have time to list specifics.
   
    With all of this at hand, the question presents itself again: Does character matter? Of course. What what we have seen is that Barack Obama has associated himself with people that are anti-American and racist, while also making derogatory comments about the hardworking people of Pennsylvania behind their back, like a little school boy.
    With recognition to the rebuttal to this article's argument in its totality, this is not petty criticism, this is not a hate attack, these are facts, and tough questions that need to be answered by Barack Obama.
    The truth is though, that Obama supporters simply do not care. It seems that every time one these controversies arises, Obama's ratings rise. Obviously character does not matter to them. They made their decision a long time ago. It's Barack Obama, regardless of the implications of his actions.