Yeah, whatever....

Obama's pattern of cynical opportunism isn't limited to castigating his "friend" from NY about a vote that mattered more to her state than any other, a vote he may have well tried to vote "Present" on, had he not still been in the Ill. senate at the time.

Or touting as "universal" for over a year a health care plan that is no such thing.

This pattern extends to even the minor throw away things he says that apparently do not need, in his opinion, to be supported buy the facts.

It is a lazy sort of cynical opportunism that often gets him into trouble, like waving his hand at the earlier debate to make sure everyone knew he was different than Clinton, that he would "give DL's to illegal aliens.", which would haunt him in the general election.

Or like saying he would invite the worst dictators in the world to the WH in his first year with no preconditions.

This laziness of planned policy and this disregard for the facts large or small is troubling indeed.

I see that TR has No Comment on this article. I am SO surprised!

Corky- my comment is that this would have been a perfectly reasonable post to post on the Debate thread or even your own "Clinton Wins debate" thread, but you have to introduce yet another thread for it, though it is still about the same debate.

It's kinda dumb.

"What a troll."

It's not trolling to criticize the opponent's record. It's called politics. Apparently Obama Cultists are so thin-skinned that they can't handle a little fact-checking.

That's not what we are doing Bill O'R

It seems superfluous for Corky to post multiple threads with an anti-Obama slant and they are ALL about one debate.

reminds me of the threads on Kindergarten Kondoms??? etc we were getting every day from Bowa back in the

"Rudy will be President" days last year

"hey are ALL about one debate."

I see only 2 about that debate, posted 3 days apart. Given that the original thread has fallen off the front page, there's nothing unreasonable about that.

-All Obama hit pieces

"Hit pieces" here being defined as legitimate criticisms from reliable sources that are not in line with the Obamic Myth.

Deflections like posting pics and condemning me only have the effect of highlighting the fact that the poster has no retort to the points being made, or any dispute with the facts, but is merely panicking and dissembling in the face of reality.

It's not a pretty sight.

That's called a deflection.

Usually found when there is no other retort available.

Generally known to make the user look impotent and weak.

But it was another fine looking cut & paste from the HuffPost, Tony. What is that, about a thousand in the last three months? Appears that's all you're good for.

Clinton/Obama 08!!

16 Years is Better Than 8!(tm)

TR

I'm watching Ron Dellums introduce Hillary at an Oakland event on c-span. His black vote appeal is most sincere and well received.

I think this is the first time im going to have to disagree with factcheck.org on something. It is obvious to me after watching the debate and reading a few other blogs that the most misleading statements at the debate were made by the moderators.