nynick

Kgb999,

If Obama loses, blame Clinton? How convenient. If Obama loses, look in the mirror. That's who will be responsible. Alienating half the party, pretending Michigan and Florida are mythical places that only exist in the minds of Clinton supporters, and generally saying there's no room in your party for these loathsome Clintons drives a wedge right down the middle of the Democratic Party. Good luck putting the toothe paste back in the tube. posted 05/07/2008 at 11:55:54

KFox,

"Say 10% go to McCain...these people weren't exactly Democratic voters then, where they, so they were unreliable at best. "

What if the number is closer to 20%? I take offense at the suggestion that if you're not on the Obama bus, you're not "exactly a Democratic voter". I won't vote for him and it's not because of his skin color or because I'm bitter. I don't think he would be any good at the job. He's never shown any interest in the business of governing. John McCain will clean his clock. You'll find that the electoral map hasn't been rewritten after all. Red states that account for Obama's delegate lead are not going to vote for an unqualified, untested Democrat. posted 05/07/2008 at 11:49:37

RFBorajal,

Have you lost your mind? 9/11 was a terrorist event executed by a few radical islamists with box cutters. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part of a world war that literally engulfed three quarters of the world at it's apex. We did what we did to end the war. Not doing so would have meant even more death and destruction not just for Japan for our side as well. We decided the lives of our soldiers outweighed the costs to Japanese civilians. If we did not act and millions of soldiers had died as a result, would that outcome be any less horrific? posted 05/05/2008 at 13:33:48

Ahh! It's the use of atomic weapons that bothers you? I'm not a neocon but a thousand dead enemies is a whole lot better than one dead G.I. if that G.I. is my brother. Besides, we killed many more civilians in the bombing of Dresden. There were no military targets in Dresden. It was the crown jewel of Nazi Germany in terms of art and culture. We bombed the place day and night until there wasn't a building more than one story tall left standing.
We were right to do so. It was done to impress upon both the civilians and their relatives in uniform that war isn't something they should want to engage in. We wanted to break the will of the average German soldier. It worked too. After Dresden, Germany's will to fight started to decline. posted 05/05/2008 at 13:22:11

Ginzaman,

Talk about revising history. An invasion of the Japanese Islands would have been brutal. The army estimated that close to two million servicemen would have perished. We were fighting a war and in wars people get killed. Those two bombs ended the war and saved the lives of millions of US soldiers. Some of these soldiers were probably related to you. It's sad that so many had to die in order to convince the Japanese to surrender but who's fault is that? The Japanese did not deserve any sympathy either. They treated our captured boys with such brutality that many more died in captivity than survived. The Japanese soldiers were notorious for rape and brutality of non combatants. In short, they seemed to really enjoy war. We taught them exactly how much fun it was. posted 05/05/2008 at 13:10:55

BTW--has anyone heard an explanation for how Obama's handwritten notes ended up on questionaire about gun control that he said he never saw, was filled out by a low level staffer and that misrepresented his views? posted 05/02/2008 at 21:09:35

Earl,

Aren't at least some of the people who voted for Hillary part of the Democratic party? Our patience isn't wearing thin. She keeps winning states and she's closed a 25 point gap in North Carolina according to some polls. Again, who's patience is wearing thin? posted 05/02/2008 at 12:29:26

Mort,

Peter Paul is a convicted felon, failed businessman and about as big a threat to the Clintons as you are. His case has been thrown out of court several times but he keeps amending it to stay in the news. Nice try but those who think this will harm the Clintons are going to be very disappointed. posted 05/02/2008 at 12:23:03

Siryn,

She wasn't talking to the reformers. I doubt they will have much access to the launch codes if and when Iran has nuclear capabilites. And regardless of what the IAEA says, it would be dumb of any US president to assume Iran isn't trying to get nuclear capabilites. Maybe their intentions are pure, maybe they will suffer some setbacks and they won't have the capabilities within the next 5 to 10 years but it would be imprudent to plan for that assumption. In otherwords, we can do both, deter Irans leaders by doing a little saber rattling and also quietly help the opposition within Iran.

Off topic but the inept Bush braintrust made a big show of funding Iranian opposition. The end result was they found no takers. Nobody wanted to be seen as an American puppet. We can do things to help but if people like you and I know about it, it's doomed to fail. posted 05/02/2008 at 19:49:56

If you're interested, read about the bombing of Dresden during WWII. Dresden had no military installations. It was the center of Nazi Germany's culture and art.
We bombed Dresden night and day until there wasn't a building more than a few feet high left. We killed huge numbers of non-combatants. We were right to do so. It was done to break the will of the German soldiers and to teach the people of Germany a lesson about how much fun making war is. Before Dresden, Germany itself hadn't really experienced what the rest of Europe had experienced. After Dresden, they knew. posted 05/02/2008 at 19:34:48

Look, I understand you're never going to get it but thankfully we pay people in the pentagon to plan for all kinds of scenarios and one of those plans is what to do in the event of an attack on us or one of our allies. If that attack comes in the form of a nuclear launch, we will respond in kind. That's how it works. We do that because not to do it invites more attacks. Don't you guys get it? Defense isn't some neocon invention that we have to avoid at all costs. It's the reason we're a superpower. We can drive an aircraft carrier anywhere in the world in matter of days and nobody can stop us. No other country can do that.
One of reasons we haven't seen a nuclear exchange is because of the deterrent our nuclear arsenal provides. posted 05/02/2008 at 19:24:55

DexGor,

In your studies, did you happen see anything about Iran being a major state sponsor of terrorism for nearly thirty years? Did your thesis mention that prior to 9/11, Hezzbollah was responsible for killing more Americans in acts of terror than anyone else? Now, you may think we should treat Iran like it's Canada but I think you're wrong. Iran, in large part due to our ill advised invasion of Iraq, will be a regional superpower. We don't share the same vision for the future of the region. If your thesis was that Iran isn't interested in expanding their influence at our expense, you need to revisit your conclusions. posted 05/02/2008 at 19:11:48

Ahornick,

"And why would we vaporize millions of people for a terrible act by a few?"

Nice logic. We would do it to deter the "few" who happen to have access to the launch button from doing it again. It's called war, maybe you've heard of it? posted 05/02/2008 at 12:51:53

And what if he loses both? posted 04/30/2008 at 11:52:32

She's pandering by saying she was born not too far from Indiana? Do you have evidence that she was born someplace else? posted 04/30/2008 at 11:42:14

I wonder how many superdelegates might switch back to Clinton if Obama loses North Carolina and Indiana. Losing in a state where he had a twenty point lead a week ago would definitely give superdelegates something to think about. Most of these superdelegates are politicians. When Hillary was winning they preferred her. When Obama gained, they switched to him. Who's to say they can't switch back again? posted 04/30/2008 at 11:40:32

Speaking of lies, have we heard a plausible explanation for just how Obama's hand written notes appeared on a questionaire about gun control he said he never saw, was filled out by a low level staffer and don't represent his views on the subject? 'Cause I haven't seen one. posted 04/30/2008 at 12:55:17

If Obama is the nominee, he loses. It's that simple. There are many reasons but two spring to mind immediately. The first is the map. Ceding Michigan and Florida means he starts with a huge defict. I know you guys like to pretend that tossing out those two states won't cost him in the general election but you're wrong. Second, Hillary supporters. Having watched the Obama crowd slash and burn these two will push many of us to either not vote at all or vote for McCain. That's especially true in the key swing states where Obama is the weakest. He has been mortally wounded and enters the general election as a
candidate of the far left fringe who can't hold the middle of even his own party. That fact alone puts his entire "unifying" "post partisan" talking points into question. posted 04/30/2008 at 12:46:30

Missouri writes:

"give the man a break--he has jumped through hoops for the American people and the media!!"

WTF? Does he want to be President or not? Hillary didn't create the Rev. Wright problem and for all of the vitriol Obama supporters are famous for, even they should realize that this issue is better dealt with in a primary than in the general election. posted 04/30/2008 at 11:29:54

Obama is near the end. If he loses North Carolina and Indiana, a shockwave will ripple through the superdelegates. Many will switch back to Clinton. Obama suppporters will cry but the seeds of his defeat can be traced back to the South Carolina primary and the tarring of Bill Clinton as a racist. Many say Bill and Hillary aren't really Democrats, they're evil, they're bad for the party. That version of the party, one without room for people like the Clintons who have worked hard to advance democratic causes for their entire adult lives, isn't a party I want to belong to. I ain't alone. This is a battle for the future of the Democratic party. You have the Arriana branch, those who believe all the hype about Obama and every looney conspiracy about the Clintons. On the other side, you have Clinton supporters who are not willing accept on blind faith the "post partisan" , "post racial" talking points. We support Hillary because we think she's the most qualified and will actually solve problems, not just talk about solving problems. Lately, the Arriana side has been leading. They tried to push the other side right out of their party. Soon, Obama's campaign will be mortally wounded. In the end, Obama and Hillary will have to merge as a united team. Hillary as President, Obama as the VEEP. posted 04/30/2008 at 11:19:37

Whitewater is all you got? Kenneth Starr had extra constitutional powers and spent 30 million dollars and came up empty there.
You are aware aren't you that Tony Rezko is currently on trial. Obama has his own BUSINESS PARTNERS to worry about. Somehow I think that may have factored into Baracks thinking on the whole Whitewater smear. But go ahead and run that highlight reel. posted 04/30/2008 at 16:42:13

So Bob Cesca is upset that Obama is catching grief for his association with Rev. Wright.
I'm sorry but I can't work up much sympathy for the Obama faithful who have done their level best to destroy both Clintons. One reaps what one sows. If you want a campaign about issues, make it about issues. Don't make it about race baiting. From "fairy tales" , "3AM" "tears for Katrina" and beyond, Obama's team has never missed a chance to race bait. Now that Barack has to defend his relationship with his pastor, you guys think we should be talking about issues. Get real. If Obama didn't want any mud on his face, he should tell his surrogates to stop throwing it. Is this what Obama means by "post racial"? It looks an awful lot like plain old damage control to me. posted 04/30/2008 at 15:54:46

Stalkervision,

But isn't the great Obama going to "transform" us? Isn't he going to heal the great racial divide? How can you say he's not the normal politician and then expect him to behave like a normal politician? posted 04/28/2008 at 13:14:50

I'm not a fan of Obama but I think attacking the guy over Rev. Wright is wrong. Whatever one may think of Obama and his candidacy, people of color have not had the same experience as whites in this country. Rev. Wright speaks a truth that most of the country knows but is unwilling to acknowledge. Is there anger? Yes, of course there is. But there is also anger among middle class white men in rural communities over immigration. The black church represents a constant in the history for equality that stretches back over hundreds of years in this country. Most of that history has been one of degrading and demoralizing inequality. It seems pretty reasonable to me that a sense of anger would animate the sermons of black clergy. We can't seem to understand it though. But let some ranchers who relies on federal subsidies to keep him in that big house and fuel his two SUV's see a mexican walk across his land and we get all misty for him. Please, race is complicated. We ain't getting past it without dealing with the anger. We can pretend the good Rev. is wrong and evil but we will only be perpetuating the same lie we've been conditioned to accept for at least the past 40 years. posted 04/28/2008 at 13:00:17

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and not too bad at speaking in complete sentences. Hillary may not be the most electrifying speaker but she has a good command of the language, and more than that, she's got an even better command of the issues. If you can't see the difference between the Clintons and Bush, then maybe it's you that needs to work on your education. They have been very effective at governing, Bush? Not so much. Hillary has won over military professionals who have seen her work first hand on the armed services committee. She didn't just phone it in like the Jr. senator from Illinois. She's been an effective legislator, an advocate from children and an ardent supporter of univeral health care throughout her professional life and yet you guys want to toss them overboard for the sin of opposing Barack Obama. Power? Adoration? Validation? Neither of them need it. History will judge Bill kindly for the things he did as president regardless of what you generation X wannabes say about him now. They could easily sit back and play kingmaker, earn millions and protect their legacy. Instead they risked it all for a chance to serve the people one more time. The end result of your idiotic tirades will be the eventual election of John McCain. You can then go back to your helpdesk job at Verizon and whine to your shift manager about how stupid everyone is for not listening to you. posted 04/28/2008 at 17:36:12

Mathematically, neither can Obama. He can't get to 2025 delegates. That's the rule you guys like to pretend doesn't exist when you're crying about enforcing the rules on Michigan and Florida. All Obama has to do is get to 2025 delegates. Why can't he just get to that number? All he has to do is win enough votes. If he can't do that, why should someone hand him the nomination? posted 04/28/2008 at 17:19:52

Umm, Obama isn't going to win Kentucky. He's going to lose, even he is dampening expectations there.

And...

"West Virginia. Who knows. Who cares?"

So Obama supporters believe that any state that doesn't vote for him is unimportant? posted 04/28/2008 at 17:14:55

Well this much I can guarantee you. I won't be voting for Obama. The reason has less to do with Obama than it does his rabid supporters. I don't see that we have much in common. You're willingness to destroy the party to make it safe for Obama's oversized ego will eventually doom any chance he may have had. posted 04/28/2008 at 16:42:43

Dennisstanisfield,

Speaking of dishonest, has anyone heard a plausable explanation for how Obama's handwritten notes appeared on those questionaires about gun control? Obama said they were filled out by a low level staffer, he never saw them, and they don't represent his thinking. Only when some enterprising reporter checked, notes in Obama's handwriting were found on the documents.
Oh, nevermind. Just move on. Nothing to see here.... posted 04/28/2008 at 16:37:53

yetiable,

"And by the way, nukes won't only kill their political leaders."

True. But those leaders should know that a nuclear attack against Israel, which is highly unlikely, would result in their destruction as well.
That's all. I doubt Obama disagrees with this. posted 04/28/2008 at 16:31:26

Look, if you believe that we'll all be "transformed", "inspired", "post partisan" and "post racial" if only we elect the great Obama, then that's your choice. May I submit that rather than look for fools gold, after the last eight years of mismanagement at the federal level, I and many voters like me are looking for something else entirely. We want competence. That's all. Not great speeches followed by inaction. Not inspiration or transformation but competence. Someone who will wake up every day and work hard to solve problems that we can actually do something about.

You say, "Should Obama win, there is clearly a mandate for new politics."

What will this new politics look like? If we use this primary campaign as a gauge, it's going to look a lot like the old politics. Vitriol, innuendo and half truths replacing reasoned debate. If the Democratic party thinks that expelling the Clintons is a good idea, it's not the party I knew and therefore, not my party anymore. There are plenty of people who think this way. They are normally reliable democrats but this divide between Obama and Clinton supporters will eventually ruin any chance we may have had at regaining the White House. posted 04/28/2008 at 15:17:03

Fact: Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism for over thirty years.

Fact: Before 9/11, Hezzbollah, with backing from Iran, had killed more americans in terror attacks than any other organization.

Fact: Iran is seeking and will likely have nuclear weapons sometime in the next 5 to 10 years.

Fact: Iran's leader has said Israel should be wiped off the map.

Fact: Iran will be the ultimate winner in Iraq. They will benefit at our expense, becoming a regional superpower.

Fact: Iran has threatened to mine the gulf if they are attacked.

The next president should be thinking about these things and how to counter the growing influence of Iran on the region as a whole. Sometimes, rattling the saber can convey a message and actually save lives. posted 04/28/2008 at 15:05:10

Kohoutek writes:

"They're upset by HRC's adoption of scorched-earth Rovian character-assassination tactics."

Examples please? Calling Obama's statements on the war a fairy tale? The 3AM add?
Not crying for Katrina victims? What do you find so offense? I get the sense that Obama supporters are willing to accuse Hillary of "scorched-earth Rovian character-assassination" but are unwilling or unable to provide much in the way of proof. They assume, and rightly so, that a media in love with their candidate will repeat the slur without proving it's accuracy. It may just work in the primaries but you're going to find this strategy has its limits in the general election. posted 04/28/2008 at 14:56:37

Outside of Obama's marketing, there is no evidence that Barack can deliver on this "transformation". Where has he shown a willingness to risk political capital to solve problems? Where has he reached across the aisle? Where has he taken bold positions without hedging them? The idea that Obama can change the world and usher in the era of "post partisanship" is a fairy tale. He's never done it in the past, has not really articulated how he's going to do it should he win, and every bit of evidence from his past points in the opposite direction.

I know the arguments we will hear from his supporters. He's going to eliminate special interests!
His is a recent conversion to this cause. He's taken plenty of special interest money in the not so distant past. Like when he was running for the Senate, or for his presidential exploratory campaign. Then, special interest money was fine with him. posted 04/28/2008 at 12:23:47

Silly stuff. Well, like Kevin Bacon said to Tom Cruise,
"your boys' going down Danny. There's nothing I can do to stop it now. " posted 04/22/2008 at 15:21:07

"Obama likely delivers Colorado, New Mexico and a few more."


Yeah but at the expense of Florida, Michigan, and Ohio. McCain will beat Obama because the so called progressives of our party can't look beyond their own nose. Rewriting the history of the Clinton years will not be without cost. Many of us will either stay home or vote for McCain rather than see Obama elected. If you think that's not going to matter, that we're a small group, keep in mind that a few thousand votes in some key states that went to Nader instead of Gore delivered the White House to the Shrub. Four years later, Kerry narrowly lost Ohio and Bush won a second term. It's going to happen again this year. Michigan and Ohio are both states McCain can win and he's gonna trounce Obama in Florida. Hillary can win all three of those states. Obama can't. That's the "math" Obama fans don't like to look at. posted 04/22/2008 at 13:41:00

Okay, I'll grant you that neither NY or California is likely to vote for McCain. Toss in Michigan, Ohio, Florida and PA (where it's not beyond the realm of possibility McCain can win there) and tell me how a Democrat wins the White House without winning three of those four states? posted 04/22/2008 at 13:17:53

Illinios and Hawaii are both home turf for him. Washington, D.C isn't a state. There is no question that Obama has built his delegate lead with big wins in red states that are not going to turn blue in November. Maryland, CT, Vermont, Minnesota and Wisconsin are all fine states but so too are NY, NJ, California, Mass. and Ohio. Add up the electoral votes from Obamas states and then add the electoral votes for Clinton states. posted 04/22/2008 at 13:13:53

"In the general election, the votes for Clinton or Obama will then be for the Democrat, whoever the nominee is..."

Not so fast. That may have been true a few months ago but it's probably not the case now. Obama and Clinton supporters are going to have a very difficult time fitting into the same tent.
Just read comments here at HuffPo. Obama people think she's the devil and Clinton people think he's a poser. The electoral map can't be discounted. Yes, there may be an opportunity to turn a few states in the sun belt from red to blue but Colorado and Nevada will not be enough to offset a democratic loss in PA, Ohio, Michigan and/or Florida. In otherwords, the swing states will decide it like they usually do. posted 04/22/2008 at 12:09:58

Look, it's been a long and difficult campaign. It's been hard to keep the discussion about issues. Ms. Ephron I suppose could be forgiven for her penchant to write about the primary as if it were a sitcom but we should remember that this isn't some half hour comedy show that gets all the conflicts resolved before the closing credits. Lines like, "This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women " might be a good line for Archie Bunker but aren't really appropriate for a serious primary discussion. posted 04/21/2008 at 13:17:14

Jeez, I've read lots of puff peices here at HuffPo fawning over Obama but this one takes the cake. You don't address anything of substance, it's just a bunch of attacks on Clinton and praise for Obama. I'm down with that if you would offer something useful to consider like his vote on this or that bill or his taking a stand when it mattered or anything beyond the "confident", "comfortable in their own skin" babble. I like the anchor on Sportscenter to be confident and comfortable in their own skin, I would hope we might be able to set the bar a little higher for the leader of the free world. Obama appeals to the masses because he looks good and the media love him. He has also been helped by the fact that is opponent is so well known and loathed by that same media folks who drool over Barack. We focus on this or that phrase, soundbite or image. What we never seem to focus on is how these people would actually govern. Obama would govern like the man he is. Aloof, indifferent to those who don't kneel down at this alter and assured that no matter what happens, it will never be his fault. posted 04/15/2008 at 14:20:32

TN60,

Let's see, in the space of a few paragraphs, you managed to call Hillary a "black widow spider" and "arrogant". You then go on to call Edwards Gore, Reid and Pelosi "traitors" "wusses" and "cowards". But it's Hillary who's to blame for tearing the party apart? You guys are completely unhinged. Obama is going to lose to McCain and it's not even going to be close. He can't win states with mixed democraphics, the southern states that basically provide the bulk of his lead among pledged delegates are not going to go blue. He's already discounted the voters of Penn, Fla, and Mich, and now you guys are doing your best to turn NY and NJ into potential GOP winners too. posted 03/31/2008 at 16:11:14

I wonder if any of the Obama supporters who spent the last three months attacking the Clintons like a rabid rightwing wolfpack have given any thought at all to the damage they have done to party unity? Of course not. They're using the wingnut playbook and as every good wingnut knows, there is always someone else to blame for your mistakes. This time, it's all going to be Hillary's fault. Whateves. I'm a life long democrat and I'm not voting for Obama. I'll vote for McCain before I vote for him. I remember the Clinton years and the so called "scandals" other than Monica, were nothing more than a fabrication sold to us by the Republicans. They didn't add up to a hill of beans and you guys use these dramas to rewrite history and paint the Clintons as evil. Bill Clinton came to the White House when the economy was in shambles and when he left, we had a surplus, the country was at it's apex of global respect and the average citizen was better off than they were before he got here. That may seem like nothing to you guys but we would be very lucky indeed if Saint Obama accomplished half of what Bill did when he was president. The fact that Democrats even need reminding of these facts makes me sad for our future. You've already created enough animus amongst your fellow democrats that the party will be split come November no matter who wins now. posted 03/31/2008 at 15:55:39

But doesn't this call for accountability also include Mr. Obama? I don't understand the
nature of your complaint. This IS a political soapbox and Mr. Halper is standing firmly
on top. Look, if all you want to hear is how great Obama is and you want to divorce the man's record from his rhetoric, then go ahead. I doubt it's a winning strategy for any politician though. posted 03/28/2008 at 16:58:41

The internet may have improved Obama's chances in the primary but I think it will come back to hurt him in the general. O'Reilly used some commenters on Kos today to attack Obama. Get ready for more of that. It won't be effective with Democrats but it will with Independents and Republicans. Obama has poisoned the well already. I won't vote for him and I have voted Democratic since Jimmy Carter. posted 03/28/2008 at 16:07:10

"Obama's dignified elevation of our national discourse through honesty, depth, and nuance..."

Please, honest? Like when he said he wasn't at those sermons and never heard the rev say those things? Or maybe you mean when he said he wasn't praising Reagan and demeaning Bill Clinton when in fact he was?

Elevate the discourse? His definition of that word must be different than mine because it's obvious he retains the right to call anyone who questions his record or his background a racist. Obama is only concerned with Obama. He's not ever shown any interest in actually governing effectively so how everyone believes he's going to suddenly be a uniter after doing all he can do divide us is beyond me.
Good luck with this guy. I see him for what he is. A gifted speaker but blinded by his own ambition. He's going to fail us all in the end. The hype from people like Mr. Halper has no basis in reality. posted 03/28/2008 at 15:55:38

Shorter Pithy:

"I can insult anyone who is older than I am but I reserve the right to cry like a baby if someone points out the idiotic nature of my argument."

here's another nugget of scientific knowledge for you to chew on. Young people sometimes make rash and foolish choices. That's why they pay more for car insurance. It's also why they are the most coveted demographic for advertisers. They are more prone to acting on impulse. Neurons aren't the entire story are they? posted 03/25/2008 at 18:15:59

papers on a website are easy to write. Getting them done is hard. What's Obama going to do when he runs into opposition? Call his opponents racists? posted 03/25/2008 at 18:07:09

So now we are pretending to know which side Jesus would take in an Democratic primary? Maybe Jesus wouldn't vote at all since he loves all his children? Maybe Jesus would be too busy to care who won? Maybe Jesus should be left out of politics all together? posted 03/25/2008 at 18:00:14

BBox,

Respond to what? This idea that Barack Obama will transcend the politics of both left and right even though there isn't any evidence to back it up? Those aren't talking points, Obama said those things. Why is his record off limits for discussion? posted 03/25/2008 at 17:55:13

I hate it when conservatives tell me they know everything about me simply because of my left leaning affinity. It's easy to create strawmen. "Clearly" supporters of the current administration don't all think in lockstep. The fact is, you can track the popularity of a particular politician or viewpoint pretty effectively by watching the way the media trends. Overtime, support for President Bush has fallen from 80% to about 35%. You want to attribute this fall to effectiveness of liberal arguments, I disagree. Bush has proven, even to the formerly pliant media, to be utterly incompetent. People sometimes do dumb things but they retain the ability to learn from personal experience. posted 03/25/2008 at 17:08:46

Pithy,

If this is the "future" the Obama faithful want to usher in, you can have it. Do you have any thoughts that might actually advance the debate or are you pretending to be a scientist today? I wonder if your research into neurons includes any data on idiotic arguments and how to recognize them. posted 03/25/2008 at 16:48:14

Quick question, what makes you believe Barack can transcend partisanship or that he can govern effectively? I don't see any evidence in his background that's been very good at either. posted 03/25/2008 at 16:22:31

Mr. Hart says Barack is the:
"candidate of the future, who understands the dramatic changes now at work in the world and who is bold enough to propose innovative ways of dealing with them..."
There is no evidence to support this contention.
He's hardly been a transcendental figure in the United States Senate. He's missed important votes, held zero hearing as committee chair and began running for president a few minutes after he was seated. Going back to his record in the Illinois Senate, he did little of notice until it was decided he would be a good candidate for the open Senate seat. Obama's history shows he's interested in one thing and one thing only. His own political ambition. Senator Obama likes to talk about a "post racial" future but he doing his part to contribute to a hyper racial present. Every remark by his opponent or her spouse gets put under the microscope, looking for signs of racial animus. Don't ask the senator what he meant when he said it he wasn't sure how he would have voted on Iraq if was in the senate at the time or what he meant when he said he and GWB were not that far apart on the war, that would be too racially charged. Obama is very good at playing the victim of racism card. He's turned the phrase "3AM" into a new racial slur! None of this has anything to due with Barack's skin. posted 03/25/2008 at 15:14:20

Now, about that post:

Mr. Hart says Barack is the:

"candidate of the future, who understands the dramatic changes now at work in the world and who is bold enough to propose innovative ways of dealing with them..."
And yet there is no evidence to support this contention. He's hardly been a transcendental figure in the United States Senate. He's missed important votes, held zero hearing as committee chair and began running for president a few minutes after he was seated. Going back to his record in the Illinois Senate, he did little of notice until it was decided he would be a good candidate for the open Senate seat. Obama is interested in one thing only. His own political ambition. Senator Obama likes to talk about a "post racial" future but he is doing his part to contribute to a hyper racial present. Every remark by his opponent or her spouse gets put under the microscope, looking for signs of racial animus. Don't ask the senator what he meant when he said it he wasn't sure how he would have voted on Iraq if was in the senate at the time or what he meant when he said he and GWB were not that far apart on the war, that would be too racially charged. Obama is very good at playing the victim of racism card. He's turned the phrase "3AM" into a new racial slur! None of these things have anything to due with skin color. posted 03/25/2008 at 15:04:43

Yes, ideology will simply disappear when Barack takes office. I'm sure of it. Let me pose this question. Are we supposed to believe Republicans and their supporters will play along? You guys can't even convince half of your fellow Democrats to play along, how does the Great Obama plan to get past the wingnuts? posted 03/25/2008 at 14:20:24

Mr. Hart says Barack is the:

"candidate of the future, who understands the dramatic changes now at work in the world and who is bold enough to propose innovative ways of dealing with them"

And yet there is no evidence in the guy's record to support this contention.
He's hardly been a transcendental figure in the Senate. He's missed important votes, held zero hearing as committee chair and began running for president a few minutes after he was seated. Going back to his record in the Illinois Senate, he did little of notice until it was decided he would be a good candidate for the open Senate seat. Obama's history shows he's interested in one thing only. His own political ambition. Senator Obama likes to talk about a "post racial" future but he is doing his part to contribute to a hyper racial present. Every remark by his opponent or her spouse gets put under the microscope, looking for signs of racial animus. Don't ask the senator what he meant when he said it he wasn't sure how he would have voted on Iraq if was in the senate at the time or what he meant when he said he and GWB were not that far apart on the war, that would be too racially charged. Obama is very good at playing the victim of racism card. He's turned the phrase "3AM" into a new racial slur! None of these things have anything to due with Barack's skin. posted 03/25/2008 at 14:11:43

Really? First of all, my comments didn't post correctly so there was more to this post than just "Mr. Hart". Secondly, Senators, Governors, Congressmen ect. work for us. When they no longer work for us, they lose their titles. Giving them titles for life just enables their sense of entitlement. There is no shame in being addressed as Mr. posted 03/25/2008 at 14:08:31

Mr. Hart, posted 03/25/2008 at 12:28:44

Marykins123 writes: posted 03/24/2008 at 15:10:04

WTF???

"They KNEW those elections wouldn't count."???

The Clintons are responsible for this too? And poor 'ol Obama was just a lowly United States Senator. Give me a break. Shorter Opus:

"We want to bypass the voters of Michigan and Florida and blame the fallout on the Clintons". Nice try but it's not going to work. People are not a stupid as you imagine.
It's obvious to anyone outside of Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews which candidate is trying to bypass the voters of Michigan and Florida. posted 03/24/2008 at 14:36:18

Elka,

What a false choice. Hillary either quits now or she doesn't care about the country. Is your worldview so far out of wack that you honestly believe this garbage? Telling people in Michigan and Florida that they can't be involved in this election because it will upset the situation for Obama is not a winning strategy come November. Seriously, Obama supporters like to live in this fantasy world that is completely devoid of Republicans! Unfortunately, Republicans are very real. If Obama wins the nomination he will lose to John McCain. McCain and his friends in the wingnut intelligencia will define Mr. Obama as a thin skinned, underqualified, over ambitious political hack who's accomplishments never match his rhetorical gifts. Obama can't win in states with mixed demographics. He'll carry California and NY but he's going to win Ohio, Pennslyvania, Michigan, or Florida. It's not even going to be close. But none of this seems to register with the Obama faithful.
For most of you, it's not really about winning in November, it's about destroying the Clintons. posted 03/24/2008 at 13:56:22

Maybe you should read the rules too. The rules say you need 2025 delegates to get the nomination. It doesn't say you need to be leading in delegates which seems to be the standard most Obama supporters like. Also, Clinton is not the issue with regard to Michigan and Florida. It's not her fault or the fault of the voters in Michigan or Florida. It's a intra-party game of chicken that's gotten out of hand. The path to the nomination cannot exclude those two states. Do you guys want to win in November or is defeating Hillary your one and only objective? Because only a fool believes any Democrat can will the general election without winning at least one of these two states. I know it's conventional wisdom that once Obama has the nomination, he will charm the good people of Michigan and Florida and they will fall in line to vote for the new messiah. It's a pipe dream. Republicans will spend the next several months reminding voters all over but especially in Michigan and Florida that Obama didn't want to hear from them in the primary. So, by all means let's stick to the rules. All of the rules, not just the ones that favor Obama. posted 03/24/2008 at 13:32:10