Cookbooks; Biographies; History; Classics; Mysteries; Newspapers from other areas; the back of cereal boxes; Genealogy; occasionally Phone Books (really, the can be very interesting) and so much more. I remember as a teen, the first time I read “Gone With The Wind” and I couldn’t put it down until I finished it. Harper Lee’s, To Kill A Mockingbird”; “How Green Was My Valley” and the list goes on. My children tell me that’s one of their favorite memories of curling up in bed with me after their evening baths to be read a story before bedtime. I rmember reading with a flashlight under the covers at my Grandmother’s farm and having my husband tell me I had to weed out my books when they weighed more than any of our household goods during our moving from one state to another. I usually have several books, magazines and newspapers beside my bed that I am in the process of reading. I like to read Scott Turrow and David Balducci for mysteries. I’m afraid I’ve reached that situation again where I have more books than room for them so I have stacks of books all over the house and in boxes in the garage so it’s time to weed out again and that’s so hard to decide which ones I’m ready to get rid of and yet I keep buying more. I love the books of Molly Ivins and have ordered her last one and a Microwaving Cookbook for One just recently. Loved Molly’s columns, too. Anything I’m curious about and that’s a lot sets me on the path to read about it. TV just isn’t what it used to be so I don’t waste much time on that, but I love movies, too. I’m afraid I haven’t been too specific here, humm, just finished several books on Barrie (Peter Pan) and Paula Dean. When I was 7 yrs. old and went to live with my Grandmother, she didn’t have a lot of reading material other than the Bible, but I found a copy of The Snakepit and read that.

Nader is a good man, a wise man, a smart man but he’ll never win, much less be allowed to challenge the Democrat or the Republican candidates. I’ve read many of his books and he has some sound and reasonable ideas, but do you know when he’s allowed to talk? I’ve watched him on some of the channels at 2 and 3 am in the morning. That’s when he’s allowed to tell you where he stands on the issues. He’s a ghost in this election unfortunately. The other candidates would do well to listen to his ideas and view points, but I doubt that’s going to happen.

I wasn’t aware Obama had that kind of power to veto a do-over in Michigan, or Florida for that matter. According to the News, those states said they couldn’t afford a do-over. Since it was the DNC’s fault, they should have paid for the do-over voting. When the candidates were told the votes were not going to count, it would be logical to remove your name-who else remained on the ballot besides Hillary? Sounds to me like most of the candidates played by the rules set up by the DNC and lost out because of it. The DNC needs a “do-over” or “make-over” since some abide by the rules and others do not.

Obama didn’t reignite the racism. His pastor did, and since when is Obama responsible for someone elses’ remarks and behavior? It is very likely he wasn’t there when the pastor ranted that groundless tirade. Do you go to church EVERY Sunday? Is it possible you might miss something the Pastor said, if you didn’t. Obama has said he doesn’t agree with everything his Pastor says. I am responsible only for my own actions and words, not what someone else says or does. I don’t see him or hear him trying to divide the blacks and the whites, but I do see him trying to unite PEOPLE.

Blame the DNC for that fiasco. They said the votes wouldn’t count because they ran their primaries before they were supposed to and Barack wasn’t even on the ballot for that reason, so how can it be fair, if Hillary is the only one on the ballot?

I think it shows Obama has the more donations of money because people believe in what he stands for and I, too, will be sending another donation after this loss in PA.

I’m dissapointed, depressed and perhaps “bitter”. Last night proved that it’s “politics as usual”. I guess many voters don’t see mudslinging and underhanded inuendos against the other candidate as the way to get to the white house as wrong. I’ve always liked the Clintons but I don’t like the way her campaign has been running. I believe this was part of the “change” Obama was talking about, a campaign of talking about things that are wrong with our political process and our government and ways of changing it for the better. Being able to campaign on issues rather than having to waste your time trying to defend yourself against the negative campaigning by the Clinton group.