I'd never quite thought about it in the stark terms Marshall just put it into, but on the issues, I think he makes a strong case as to why America can ill afford someone with even hawkier aspirations than the Original Chickenhawk himself (if the TXANG/ AWOL tales are indeed true) George W. ("Got War?") Bush.

But seriously, all kidding aside. What do people think about the arc of events unfolding before our eyes these days? Can anyone seriously think that the US has any type of leverage with Russia and how they proceed in Georgia? The argument could be made that there isn't jack shit we could do if the Russians started putting pressure on Eastern Europe again. What are we going to do, start a nuclear war over Russia's activity in its own backyard? How did we feel about Cuba? How would we feel if Cuba joined the Soviet Union states, falling under Russia's reciprocal protections back in the 1960's?

If McCain is listening to more neo-conish hawks on his foreign policy, this crisis might be the ultimate tipping point if only the media picks up on the narrative and reports on the differences and whom each candidate relies on as key foreign policy advisors.

We think everything in a campaign is merely a show for the cameras. But in actuality each man and his chosen advisors reveal to us just how their decisions will be made and handled when there isn't time for poll-testing or simple regurgitation. It gives us a glimpse into the temperaments, the resolve, the grasp of historical context in choosing what next to do, and maybe most importantly, the TONE and tenor of the response as all speak volumes about both the men and their intimate staff.

Let's debate the points, not simply the politics. Russia's got oil. We need oil. It just seems to me we're the toothless tiger in this scenario and the Bear knows it. So sabre-rattling isn't going to do any good. They know we're short on warriors and the people are royally pissed. Its hard to sell that a small Caucaucus nation is worth more belligerence from the same crew that has the world pissed at us now. No offense at all intended to the good People of Georgia. I wish them well in their recovery and hope them nothing but the best. But I still don't see what we can do, yet McCain and his crew don't seem to have figured that out yet. So they're leading with their hard-ons yet again.

Ain't we seen enough of this picture?

Can anyone seriously think that the US has any type of leverage with Russia and how they proceed in Georgia?

TonyRoma

When Putin looked back into W''s eyes he said to himself, "This man is a total moron. I can do whatever I want. He's got America bogged down in Iraq. Let's rock!!"

Maybe the point is already moot, but somebody better tell the neo-con howlers:

* Max Boot: The Russian attacks on Georgia, if left unchecked, could easily trigger more conflict in the future. [] Today, Georgia; tomorrow, Ukraine; the day after, Estonia?--

* AEI Fellow and McCain adviser Gary Schmitt: It is also about resisting Russias openly hegemonic designs on its neighbors including Ukraine.--

* Wall Street Journal: Unless Russians see that there are costs for their Napoleons expansionism, Georgia isnt likely to be his last stop.--

Needless to say, not only are Russian tanks not rolling toward Kiev, but Russia isn't so much as taking over Georgia. Now I doubt Russia is showing restraint out of the goodness of Vladimir Putin's heart, but he's also not showing restraint because the United States did anything to stop him. Rather, even in the absence of a tough-- American response, Putin has stuck to relatively moderate goals because its not actually true that the lessons of Munich-- are applicable to every single event in the world. Occupying Georgia would be more trouble than its worth, so its not going to happen, and Russia won't attack Ukraine either. The past weeks events have been terrible for Georgians, but not world-historical in their significance.

American punditry is constantly full of dire worst-case scenario predictions about what will happen if the U.S. doesn't do something-- in this or that situation. But most often these things don't --and wouldn't-- happen anyway.

They want regime change.

Sound familiar?

He is a fucking Republican, what the hell do you expect? (He was trained by "The Dick" Cheney))

As things unfold, keep an eye on the fact that the truly fanatic Bush hardliners -- folks like John Bolton and the cadre of neoconservatives who run with him who've spent the last few years suffering what amounts to felony assault at the hands of reality -- have largely lost faith in the Bush administration (he's gone too soft, in their eyes) and are now looking to McCain as their savior. Keep an eye out for the quotes Bolton has been giving about McCain.

--Josh Marshall

Obama says:

For many months, I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force - not simply Russian troops.

No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.

Can anyone seriously think that the US has any type of leverage with Russia and how they proceed in Georgia?

Well given that one of McAncients adviors was a lobbyist for Georgia and Georgia started this scenario can it be too far off to believe that this whole incident has a wag the dog type atmosphere around it?

When all is said and done we can do nothing except protest and combine with our allies to try to stop Russia going too far. It's exerting its power in its own sphere of influence. They could do nothing if we chose to invade Cuba and effectively did nothing when we chose to invade Iraq even though it was outside our sphere of influence -- except in the diseased minds of the neocons, that is.

The alternative is nuclear war. I honestly don't think that McCain would or could drag us into that but after eight years of Bush and Cheney and what they did I'm not prepared to take the slightest chance.

Yes, he IS dangerous and unstable. Also, he's too old, and an obviously different man and character from the statesman-like figure he cut in 2000.

But that won't stop every right-wing, astroturfing, nutjob troll on DR from voting for him.

I love the deceptive way of putting, "Marshall:" in front of the title like he's some expert that must be listened too.

Marshall is a blogger who runs an extreme left wing site... as far as his opinion he's no more special then RCade, no more an expert then Markos.

This is a very silly thread to put to the front page. Marshall is going to say McCain is great about as often as the guys at Powerline are going to say Obama rules.

Or rightwing wackjobs to say Obama sucks. They can't praise McCain because their party is so fucked up that they don't know what they want.

"Marshall is a blogger who runs an extreme left wing site... as far as his opinion he's no more special then RCade, no more an expert then Markos."

Yes but....he's also exactly right on this.

I know I have mentioned it before but that clip of John McCain singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, let's bomb Iran" is the most revealing and revolting moment in this campaign. No responsible politician, no United States Senator, especially no presidential candidate can behave so irresponsibly and expect to be considered as anything except dangerous. John McCain has earned his reputation as "dangerous and unstable" and only someone who really wants another war would vote for him. If you elect John McCain it is not "if" but "when" we have another war. If you ask him he'll pretty much tell you the same thing.

NO WAR FOR OIL!

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

Hmmmmm, where is the Lib outrage now, when Putin is invading a sovereign country and going after you-know-what?

Nope, but instead they scream how unstable McCain is for talking tough!

Hey, but when you're a socialist/communist you can do what you want, cuz it's Bush's/McCain's fault anyway!

The entire country should write in Ron Paul and put a stop to foreign military meddling and the drain on our treasury.

McBUSH!

LOOSE CANNON!!

Yep yeppers people.

Not a large leap of faith required to believe in this!!!

DONT NEED A NEW BOOK TO PROMOTE THIS IDEA!!

BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Qualifications to be Presdient:

FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE - Obama was a community organizer!

Vote Obama, and make the world a safer place!

"Hmmmmm, where is the Lib outrage now, when Putin is invading a sovereign country and going after you-know-what?"

Georgia does not have oil. Putin is not going there to get oil. Thanks for playing though.

Besides, I answered the question yesterday:

I HOPE all of us Americans die at the hands of Putin(and painfully) just so I can feel good about my uncontrollable Bush bashing.

I REALLY REALLY DO....

Signed,

DanniDrivel(tm) AT 2008-08-13 PM

"Georgia does not have oil. Putin is not going there to get oil. Thanks for playing though."

How did Russia bomb the hell out of a major OIL PIPELINE that does not exist. Thanks for playing though...

Hey, but when you're a socialist/communist you can do what you want, cuz it's Bush's/McCain's fault anyway!

Posted by TheOneBS

Hey BS, we don't live in Russia or Gerogia. How is this any of our business? Because we are buddies with Georgia? Why are we buddies with them? Becasue they have the oil pipeline.

In fact, Russia has just done exactly the same thing the US did (attacked a soveriegn nation to capture some oil resources). It was ok when we did it, so it's ok when anybody else does it, right?

Do as I say, not as i do.

The vacuousness of the right's reply whenever confronted with something measured and intelligent which Obama has stated simply shows all their bleating and mocking is based on the same empty thinking which finds this nation where it currently lies.

What is Obama's foreign policy experience? He actually READS HISTORY and understands the flowing dynamics of situations instead of immediately pulling out old Cold War rhetoric and metrics and applying them where they don't fit.

McCain is doing nothing more than regurgitating 1960's groupthink and applying it to 2008. Anyone who can't see and understand what's going on better than to articulate a simple two-dimensional construct of an issue with much more complication, some self-created, is not fit to lead this nation nor be put into that position before the rest of the civilized world.

Marshall is dead right. McCain is batshit crazy and belongs in a rest home, not the White House. He is too dangerous by far and those ignoring this fact will yet again condemn us to the poisons of their own ignorance.

"What is Obama's foreign policy experience? He actually READS HISTORY"

That explains how he knew there were 57 states.

"How did Russia bomb the hell out of a major OIL PIPELINE that does not exist. Thanks for playing though...

Posted by ATaxpayer"

Georgia doesn't have the oil - an oil pipeline passes through Georgia.

Thanks for trying to play, though...

Posted by Lipshit - In fact, Russia has just done exactly the same thing the US did (attacked a soveriegn nation to capture some oil resources). It was ok when we did it, so it's ok when anybody else does it, right?

On the contrary Lipshit, there's a huge difference. Hatred of conservatives, however, will not allow you to see it.

Of course the level of outrage with the two is different. It just isn't there when Putin invades, demonstrating that the rationale for American Lib outrage has nothing to do with national sovereignty, oil, Halliburton, the environment, or ______ (you fill in the blank). Which further demonstrates American Lib hypocrisy.

What is Obama's foreign policy experience? He actually READS HISTORY and understands the flowing dynamics of situations instead of immediately pulling out old Cold War rhetoric and metrics and applying them where they don't fit.

Uhuh. Which history book was it Obama read which told him there were 57 states in the US? LOL...LOL

Yours is the vacuous statement. It is because you are well aware that "TheOne" has absolutely NO experience that you must resort to lofty rhetoric about "flowing dynamics of situations."

So...back to reality --

Obama's Foreign Policy Experience - He was a community organizer.

VOTE OBAMA...MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR THUGS LIKE PUTIN!

"Hatred of conservatives, however, will not allow you to see it."

There is nothing conservative about the Bush administration.

"Georgia does not have oil. Putin is not going there to get oil. Thanks for playing though."

Georgia doesn't have the oil - an oil pipeline passes through Georgia.

Thanks for trying to play, though

DUHHHHHHHH that is what I was attempting to point out glad you finally caught up with current events , and again thanks for trying to play..

"Uhuh. Which history book was it Obama read which told him there were 57 states in the US? LOL...LOL"

Now where's that tired, lame old deflection flag again?

"DUHHHHHHHH that is what I was attempting to point out..."

Bullshit.

"VOTE OBAMA...MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR THUGS LIKE PUTIN!"

The clueless is strong with this one.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue
"Bullshit."

Wow nothing but net with that one comeback. Let's see when your facts are wrong and your caught with your pants down respond with the intellectual comment of Bullshit ok I think I have it now.

"Wow nothing but net with that one comeback."

That, and a quick review of your posts are all that is required.

Not one single word about why they think McCain is right, only more mindless smears and mischaracterizations about Obama. Same ole shit, different day.

So Barack said their were 57 states one time. Oops.

Johnny Mac doesn't articulate the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, speaks about non-existent borders, and talks about countries long since gone. He also claims that nations don't invade other nations in the 21st Century, conveniently forgetting his role in the US invasion of Iraq.

Which statements are more indicative of a disconnect this nation can ill afford?

That, and a quick review of your posts are all that is required.

You should review your own!!!!

John McCain's foreign policy Experience:
Reads wikki and can be rented by foreign countries through one of the many many lobbyists running his campaign.

Funny part is, Russia's oil company has lobbyists on his Rentor Lease Line Express.

And for the Fighty Rightys, Georgia's military is accepting applications.

Then again, so is ours and you're all still here....

I REALLY REALLY DO....

Signed,

DanniDrivel(tm) AT 2008-08-13 PM

Posted by ride_on at 2008-08-14 09:02 AM | Reply |

Christ, you probably post more spoofs under the Danni handle than she does herself. Either go down to florida and propose or just adopt her fucking monicker.

In the 21st century,-- McCain said, nations dont invade other nations.-- Seriously. Thats what he said.

Sam Stein responded, It was the type of foreign policy rhetorical blunder that has regularly plagued the McCain campaign and could have diplomatic ripples as well. Certainly the comment was meant in innocence. But for those predisposed to the notion that the U.S. is an increasingly arrogant international actor, the suggestion by a presidential candidate that, in this day and age, countries dont invade one another when the U.S. is occupying two foreign nations does little to alleviate that negative perception.--

"...and his wisdom is unsearchable..."

You forgot to capitalize His, worshipper. Two demerits.

Not one single word about why they think Obama is right, only more mindless smears and mischaracterizations about McCain.

Here's Tony's high-minded criticism of McCain:

McCain is batshit crazy and belongs in a rest home, not the White House. He is too dangerous by far and those ignoring this fact will yet again condemn us to the poisons of their own ignorance.

Posted by tonyroma

ATaxpayer,

It's not that "we libruls" don't have good comebacks to your comments, it's that your comments simply don't warrant the effort.

You're making a fool of yourself, and it's obvious you just want some attention. Give your mom a call, so she can tell you that you're not a waste of space, and you'll feel better for a day or two before this all starts over again.

"Either go down to florida and propose or just adopt her fucking monicker."

You can always tell when it's "that time of the month" for Tamp_On.

Here's Tony's high-minded criticism of McCain:

McCain is batshit crazy and belongs in a rest home...

Posted by tonyroma

Posted by JeffJ

Well Jeff, if the shoe fits...

I don't want the future of my beloved country determined by a man who's willing to sell out his honor and long-standing image as a "maverick" to get himself elected, and the scant majority of idiots in this country who seem predisposed to vote for the person least qualified for the job, simply because they share the same party affiliation.

"You should review your own!!!!

Posted by ATaxpayer"

Well let's just do that then.

1. Danni responded to that idiot Theo Nebs who claimed Russia invaded Georgia for the oil.

2. Danni rightly pointed out that Georgia doesn't have any oil so that couldn't be correct.

3. You, in a misguided attempt to embarrass Danni said, "How did Russia bomb the hell out of a major OIL PIPELINE that does not exist."

4. I then correctly pointed out to you that Danni was correct in stating that Georgia does not have oil, and that the pipeline is someone else's oil passing through the country.

5. You claim "DUHHHHHHHH that is what I was attempting to point out..."

6. I called bullshit.

That about sums it up.

...you can always tell how easy it is to get under the skin of the DanDumb.

Jeff...

You're really stretching your own credibility here, you know? Did you bother to read my opening remarks? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be parroting my shot as an intellectual retort.

Go back and read all my initial comments on this thread and see if you don't find my argument. You're becoming a parody of intolerance and myopia. Its not becoming.

If McCain is listening to more neo-conish hawks on his foreign policy, this crisis might be the ultimate tipping point if only the media picks up on the narrative and reports on the differences and whom each candidate relies on as key foreign policy advisors.

We think everything in a campaign is merely a show for the cameras. But in actuality each man and his chosen advisors reveal to us just how their decisions will be made and handled when there isn't time for poll-testing or simple regurgitation. It gives us a glimpse into the temperaments, the resolve, the grasp of historical context in choosing what next to do, and maybe most importantly, the TONE and tenor of the response as all speak volumes about both the men and their intimate staff.

Let's debate the points, not simply the politics. Russia's got oil. We need oil. It just seems to me we're the toothless tiger in this scenario and the Bear knows it. So sabre-rattling isn't going to do any good. They know we're short on warriors and the people are royally pissed. Its hard to sell that a small Caucaucus nation is worth more belligerence from the same crew that has the world pissed at us now. No offense at all intended to the good People of Georgia. I wish them well in their recovery and hope them nothing but the best. But I still don't see what we can do, yet McCain and his crew don't seem to have figured that out yet. So they're leading with their hard-ons yet again.

And lastly, I qualified the statement you lifted with the words what preceded it. Taking it out as a stand alone doesn't prove your point, it only shows your deceit for having done what I DIDN'T DO with my complete statement. I gave reasons why I feel as I do.

I don't want the future of my beloved country determined by a man who's willing to sell out his honor and long-standing image as a "maverick" to get himself elected,

So I take it you have a problem with Obama constantly changing his stance on issues depending on his audience and where we are in the campaign cycle then.

and the scant majority of idiots in this country who seem predisposed to vote for the person least qualified for the job, simply because they share the same party affiliation.

That's precisely how I view the man-love for Obama, possibly the most under-qualified candidate we've ever had for president.

Yes Tony, you started off with pointed criticism and then concluded with regurgitated talking points regarding McCain's sanity, or lack of.

I focused on that one comment because you get so indignant when anyone criticizes Obama in a manner you feel to be childish (which pretty much applies to any criticism of Obama as you seem to feel he's beyond criticism) when you then went and finished your post in the very manner that you decry.

Jeff...

McCain is doing nothing more than regurgitating 1960's groupthink and applying it to 2008. Anyone who can't see and understand what's going on better than to articulate a simple two-dimensional construct of an issue with much more complication, some self-created, is not fit to lead this nation nor be put into that position before the rest of the civilized world.

Marshall is dead right. McCain is batshit crazy and belongs in a rest home, not the White House. He is too dangerous by far and those ignoring this fact will yet again condemn us to the poisons of their own ignorance.

It is my opinion that McCain is indeed "batshit crazy". All one has to do is listen to the things he says on a daily basis and how he misinterprets events that no President can afford to screw-up. You don't go around happily singing about bombing a sovereign nation as some joke. You don't speak for all American people when you're nothing more than a doddering Senator from Arizona. You don't send your staff to meddle in US foreign policy in another nation.

These are not the signals of sanity, quite the opposite. If you'd like to address some real issues, have at it.

Or merely continue on with your mockery and judgments of me. It seems to be all that you do these days.

Here's Tony's high-minded criticism of McCain:

Doesn't sound like you have alot to say about baghdad bob mccain but do have alot to say about tony.

>>>
>>>Not one single word about why they think McCain >>>is right, only more mindless smears and >>>mischaracterizations about Obama.
>>>
>>>Posted by tonyroma at 2008-08-14 09:43 AM
>>>
>>>

BECAUSE...

THEY don't really WANT McBUSH!

Its just that they HATE OBAMA.

STP H8IN!

At least tony didn't race bait this time.

So I take it you have a problem with Obama constantly changing his stance on issues depending on his audience and where we are in the campaign cycle then.

That's precisely how I view the man-love for Obama, possibly the most under-qualified candidate we've ever had for president.

So kindly explain yourself Jeff, or I'll accuse you of blind ignorance before your manwhore McCain. How is Obama less qualified than Abe Lincoln? Doesn't Obama have 12 years of elected government experience? How does McCain's academic record match up with Obama's? 5th from the bottom is an outstanding metric in your opinion, one worthy of the White House?

And isn't the idea of being the people's representative mean that you listen to the people? When Obama changes his stances, isn't it in response to what people are saying that they want? And doesn't he articulate his change by stating that he DOESN'T agree, but is willing to compromise for the overall betterment of the situation or issue? Do you find this a weakness in a presidential candidate?

Explain yourself please.

"SanAntonioRogue
6. I called bullshit.

That about sums it up."

Great semantics !!! Maybe I should call double Bullshit...

So I take it you have a problem with Obama constantly changing his stance on issues depending on his audience and where we are in the campaign cycle then.

Which issues has he changed his stance on? You're making the claim, now please back it up.

That's precisely how I view the man-love for Obama, possibly the most under-qualified candidate we've ever had for president.

Posted by JeffJ

Underqualified, compared to who? John McCain is also a senator, and other conservatives on this site (possibly including yourself) have said Senators don't make good presidents, because they have no real experience "governing". Based solely on job description, McCain and Obama are on an even playing field. Some would argue that McCain is more experienced because he's been a Senator longer, which would give him an edge on Obama. However, his "maverick" status is quickly becoming seen for what it is, a smokescreen for the fact that he also has allowed himself to be tainted by lobbyists. He also has a clear predilection for bouts of anger and overreaction, which would prove dangerous when one is in charge of the most powerful military in the world.

By contrast, Obama has shown an obvious skill for bringing together parties who disagree, he shows the ability to identify with people's concerns, he appeals to my desire that America after GWB can be a great country again, has shown the foresight that the Iraq war wasn't a good idea, and he's black. (Just kidding on that last one.)

Long story short, being given the choice of two senators with equal qualifications (but strengths in different areas), I will take the pragmatic leader who can actually unite the country with a positive message, versus the man who shares the same ideals as the previous unpopular president and has shown a willingness to compromise he long held ideals simply to get elected.

That explains how he knew there were 57 states.

Posted by ATaxpayer

58 states.

Obama said he had been to 57 states and had one more to go...

JeffJ,
No, the most under-qualified candidate is the one currently occupying the White House.

Yes Tony, you started off with pointed criticism and then concluded with regurgitated talking points regarding McCain's sanity, or lack of.

So that negates the factual points and opinions? I've called McCain that for months because from what I see, he borders on "crazy" because he's all over the map. There is no telling what the man will say or imply next.

Its hard to see how anyone listening to his disjointed remarks can't see the comparison themselves. Its HYPERBOLE, not literal. I guess we never see anyone being hyperbolic about Obama, do we? And I seldom cry like a whiny little bitch about it either.

So Barack said their were 57 states one time. Oops.

Posted by tonyroma

58.

Every American knows there are 50... hmmmmmm....

DDenton...

Don't confuse them with logic and facts. It merely gets them agitated!

Great post.

All one has to do is listen to the things he says on a daily basis and how he misinterprets events that no President can afford to screw-up. You don't go around happily singing about bombing a sovereign nation as some joke. You don't speak for all American people when you're nothing more than a doddering Senator from Arizona. You don't send your staff to meddle in US foreign policy in another nation.

You don't announce that you'd blow off the wishes of a tenuous stratic-ally if you had a shot at Bin Laden. You don't announce that nukes are off the table in a region, that if nothing else, respects raw power. You don't go on an international tour and pander to European elitists with sappy leftist platitudes when a majority of citizens in this country want their presidential hopefuls to exude pro-Americanism. You don't announce that you'd engage in talks with nations threatening to wipe an ally off the map without preconditions. You don't give a speech and accuse the other side of fear tactics, "Did I menion he's black?" Race-baiting at its worst. You don't announce to the world that you let the actions of others determine whether or not you'd wear a flag pin - a symbol of patriotism.

You don't target 1 industry and 1 industry only for a 'windfall profits tax'. It opens up the following questions:

1. What constitutes a 'windfall' profit and who makes that determination?

2. If 'big oil' is targeted, which industry is next?

3. Why in the hell does the government think it should decide what constitutes a 'reasonable' level of profit?

4. Since when is profit a bad thing?

5. Is this guy a true Marxist in sheep's clothing?

For the record, I don't give a shit about the 57 states comment, nor do I have a problem with the photo of Obama not placing his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

So kindly explain yourself Jeff, or I'll accuse you of blind ignorance before your manwhore McCain. How is Obama less qualified than Abe Lincoln? Doesn't Obama have 12 years of elected government experience? How does McCain's academic record match up with Obama's? 5th from the bottom is an outstanding metric in your opinion, one worthy of the White House?

How stupid from both sides.

Elected experience????? That doesn't mean shit when talking about the President. Academic record? Doesn't mean shit and how high and mighty to put such a high top of the intelligence on school. Feel sorry for a few great great Presidents who had very little schooling.....say Washington for one.

I am not only hitting you Tony, I have confronted JJ on this issue in the past. JJ will not budge, just blind hatred for Obama and he doesn't know why so he has to convolute shit up in his mind to justify the hate.

By contrast, Obama has shown an obvious skill for bringing together parties who disagree, he shows the ability to identify with people's concerns, he appeals to my desire that America after GWB can be a great country again, has shown the foresight that the Iraq war wasn't a good idea, and he's black. (Just kidding on that last one.)

Ummmm, which Senator has shown he works with those across the aisle and has earned the name "maverick" for doing so?

When has Obama crossed the aisle to bring parties together?

More vacuous rhetoric from the left, but if you say it enough times maybe people will believe it.

As far as I'm concerned, Repubs and Conservatives are going to vote for McCain for two reasons.

1. They've been fed so much hate and propaganda regarding "libruls" that they can't stomach a Democrat president.

2. They realize they go screwed over by the NeoCons and are looking for a do-over, in the hopes that McCain will actually be conservative compared for GWB.

And I seldom cry like a whiny little bitch about it either.

No matter what the criticism, you go apeshit when the subject is Obama.

John McCain is also a senator, and other conservatives on this site (possibly including yourself) have said Senators don't make good presidents

What a silly point for any republican to make... or democrat to counter for that matter.

There hasn't been a Senator turned President since JFK and he didn't even make it out of his first term.

I know I've said, and heard they don't make good presidential candidates... and that is indisputable.

Which issues has he changed his stance on? You're making the claim, now please back it up.

Come now, you really can't be that stupidly blind.

Obama has changed his stance on about everything, but lets here some more good good great slants on how that is not so.

"Great semantics !!! Maybe I should call double Bullshit...

Posted by ATaxpayer"

You certainly could do that, although the facts would not support your contention.

JJ will not budge, just blind hatred for Obama and he doesn't know why so he has to convolute shit up in his mind to justify the hate.

First off, I don't hate Obama.

Secondly, I have very specific reasons as to why I think he'd make for a lousy president.

Here's the record when it comes to Georgia. Obama, on learning of the Soviet invasion, played it cool. It was "important ... for all sides to show restraint." McCain, by contrast, demanded that Russia "immediately and unconditionally" pull its forces out of Georgia.

As Georgia's plight worsened, McCain called "Russian aggression both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance" to us. He called for "high-level" diplomacy among European allies and said the United States should provide Georgia economic and humanitarian aid. Obama, for his part, urged that Russia "immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from Georgian territory" -- the original McCain position. - Bill Murchison

Yep, Hussein is ready. Just give him a day or two to figure out his position - well let someone else figure out his position.

You don't speak for all American people when you're nothing more than a doddering Senator from Arizona. - TR

You mean like standing in front of yourapeeins and making apologies for U.S. behavior?

What flavor is the koolaide today TR? I loved orange as a child but grew out of it. Most hussein followers have not.

JeffJ,
What are those reasons?

I don't particularly like either choice for President.....perhaps those that won't be voting for Obama truly believe he lacks the experience and that he is not the answer.

"Ummmm, which Senator has shown he works with those across the aisle and has earned the name "maverick" for doing so?"

That would be the one who forfeited that moniker by voting with the Bush Administration 95% of the time this past year, and 92% of the time over the last 5 years.

JeffJ,
What are those reasons?

Posted by evilpolock

Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia...

That would be the one who forfeited that moniker by voting with the Bush Administration 95% of the time this past year, and 92% of the time over the last 5 years.

In other words, just cherry-pick your evidence.

If unity is truly important, McCain has a more proven track-record than Obama.

Ummmm, which Senator has shown he works with those across the aisle and has earned the name "maverick" for doing so?

Which Senator has made jokes about bombing another country? Which Senator seems unaware of who we're fighting in Iraq? Which one seems unsure of what countries border on Iran, the country he makes jokes about bombing?

When has Obama crossed the aisle to bring parties together?

I didn't say unity was important Jeff. I was responding to the "maverick" comment.

He isn't.

That would be the one who forfeited that moniker by voting with the Bush Administration 95% of the time this past year, and 92% of the time over the last 5 years.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-08-14 10:27 AM | Reply

Wow, those are close to the numbers that Joe Lieberman posts in regards to voting with the Dems. Remember him? He's the guy you guys tried to boot for not toeing the line...

I focused on that one comment because you get so indignant when anyone criticizes Obama in a manner you feel to be childish (which pretty much applies to any criticism of Obama as you seem to feel he's beyond criticism) when you then went and finished your post in the very manner that you decry.

Every single thread I post on is full of derogatory comments about Barack Obama. I seldom respond to any of them unless their authors include something of substance in their negative arguments about him. I do not get indignant with opinions based on "something". I relish debating different viewpoints.

What you're missing is that most of the arguments against Obama have been thoroughly shown to be lacking in both substance and fact at the same time. Obama isn't an empty suit, he does have an impressive record and resume even though he hasn't been around national politics all that long.

The bigger point all his detractors continue to miss is that when you criticize him over his popularity, you're spitting in the face of millions upon millions of Americans who do admire him and are working tirelessly to help him become the next President. He has already rewritten the books on politics and how to run a modern campaign. But many still disrespect him. His campaign has run seemlessly without hitch while McCain and Clinton have shaken up staff more times than they can count. But Obama gets no credit.

He's playing and "leading" a national organization which has raised more money from more citizens than anyone else in the history of America, but many don't give him a morsel of respect for these accomplishments.

Where I stand, he's already shown us what he's capable of doing and by anyone's metric, he's done a good job. Doesn't mean he'll be a great President, but it gives many of us hope that he'll be a damn sight better than the one we currently have.

He isn't.

History and a well-documented track record say otherwise.

There are 57 states and major territories plus the District of Columbia.

US territories are Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and Taiwan

This is what Obama meant. Pretty simple.

If unity is truly important, McCain has a more proven track-record than Obama.

Wow! Unity?????

Fuck unity, how about doing what is right for America, not for the party.

I can't believe you said that JJ, just shocked.

Unity............LOL!

Party through and through!

I don't particularly like either choice for President.....perhaps those that won't be voting for Obama truly believe he lacks the experience and that he is not the answer.

I have no problem with anyone who feels this way. Its everyone's right as an American to do as they feel.

I only hope Obama has the chance to prove you wrong.

Including DC

ohn McCain is also a senator, and other conservatives on this site (possibly including yourself) have said Senators don't make good presidents

What a silly point for any republican to make... or democrat to counter for that matter.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

So I'm silly for countering an idea that's silly to begin with?

If unity is truly important, McCain has a more proven track-record than Obama.

Wrong again. List McCain's bipartisan accomplishments Jeff. Don't say it without backing it up with fact.

"This is what Obama meant. Pretty simple.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY"

I don't know if that's really what he meant, or if he was just tired and misspoke. At least he only did it once, unlike McCain who keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over, even when corrected.

Latest example, mispronouncing the name of his "good friend" the President of Georgia 3 times in one interview.

Obama isn't an empty suit, he does have an impressive record and resume even though he hasn't been around national politics all that long.

That is your opinion. I think his resume is weak and his record is unproven.

The bigger point all his detractors continue to miss is that when you criticize him over his popularity, you're spitting in the face of millions upon millions of Americans who do admire him and are working tirelessly to help him become the next President.

You just proved my point - criticism of Obama, no matter what the issue, is intolerable to Obamananiacs.

He has already rewritten the books on politics and how to run a modern campaign. But many still disrespect him. His campaign has run seemlessly without hitch while McCain and Clinton have shaken up staff more times than they can count. But Obama gets no credit.

He has run a very effective campaign, so far.

This is what Obama meant. Pretty simple.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY

What are you smoking this morning?

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds," - BO

Reason enough not to vote for him.

The President isn't suppose to work work congress, that is why he has VETO.

The President is suppose to protect and do what is right for America.

Working with Congress go us into the mess.

Obama is a hack, and history will prove this out.

The do nothing Democratic Congress will just magnify it.

ELCID

Don't even pretend like you were even considering voting for Obama.

Each time Obama speaks now turns me one step closer to baghdad bob.

That is your opinion. I think his resume is weak and his record is unproven.

Why? Give me specifics please.

You just proved my point - criticism of Obama, no matter what the issue, is intolerable to Obamananiacs.

"I have no problem with anyone who feels this way. Its everyone's right as an American to do as they feel."

Your hyperbole meter is on 100%.

Criticism should be based on fact and reason, even feelings, but not specious idiocy wrapped in scorn. That isn't criticism, its envy.

"Reason enough not to vote for him.

Posted by ELCIDCE90"

Why? Do you even have any idea what he meant by that statement?

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds," - BO

Reason enough not to vote for him.

So I take it you WANT reparations paid to AA's and NA's?

Obama doesn't, so is that why you'll vote against him?

The "actions" he talked about were improving opportunities for the ancestors affected by these atrocities, not opening the Treasury and divvying up the loot. But if you read further than the negative talking point, you might already know this.

The "actions" he talked about were improving opportunities for the ancestors affected by these atrocities...

Posted by tonyroma at 2008-08-14 10:49 AM | Reply

In other words, more hand-outs. Those have been working so well, why not...

"He has already rewritten the books on politics and how to run a modern campaign."

Obama's campaign is an epiphenomenon, the first was Howard Dean. Dean rewrote the book, by using modern technology for campaigns and campaign financing. Politically I haven't seen anything special from Obama, get the extreme vote, then run to the middle, classic.

MoneyWar,

I agree with your assesments, not just the Obama ones ;-) I find it disturbing that we have Senators running for office. One because they come from the cesspool congress. Two they have never really put together a budget.

W did put together a budget and look what a mess he got us in.

So I'm silly for countering an idea that's silly to begin with?

Posted by ddenton

No, I was calling your original line that Republicans said Senators make bad presidents bullshit.

Why would anyone say such a thing? There hasn't been one since JFK... So I doubt anyone ever actually said it, but if they did they were silly, and anyone who said they do make good presidents is equally silly.

You're nitpicking Rob. I wasn't claiming Senators make good presidents. My point was that based on job description alone, McCain and Obama are on a level playing field. I think the point I was making is pretty clear, and it's pretty clear can't get through the day without trying to zing someone on the other side of the contest.

Politically I haven't seen anything special from Obama, get the extreme vote, then run to the middle, classic.

Just watch and see how his 50 state organization will pay dividends for not only himself, but for many other Democrats come November. Dean created the concept, Obama and his people took it to the next level. For someone supposedly so "inexperienced," I find it more than simply impressive, its remarkable.

I hope its a harbinger of greater things yet to come.

And you must not be paying close attention. Obama has been scorned by the far left, he's never been in their corner on most issues. He drew his strength from the middle to begin with, including disaffected Republicans fed-up with the neo-con body-snatchers currently running under the GOP label. There is little "extreme" about any of Obama's positions nor policies.

That would be "you can't get through the day..."

Who cares if Obama and his people can run a stellar campaign? That can largely be attributed to his campaign manager and their staff, and not Obama himself. Furthermore, even if the success were attributable to Obama, all it would mean is that he's a good salesman, and it has nothing to do with the product underneath the campaign.

Being a good salesman does not qualify you to be President of the United States. No amount of spin from people like Tony Roma is going to change that.

Obama has been scorned by the far left, he's never been in their corner on most issues. He drew his strength from the middle to begin with

During his very short tenure in the senate his vote has been among the most liberal. In 2007, he had the most liberal voting record of any senator.

This guy is not a centrist, no matter how much you want to believe so.

My point was that based on job description alone, McCain and Obama are on a level playing field.

Uh... no... One is the Junior Senator, the other is Senior Senator.

meaning one has a lot more experience in the Senate then the other.

Now, don't take that to mean I think the experience line is one that carries a lot of weight... President's surround themselves with a cabinet of experienced people because no man is going to be an expert in every area of gov't...

That's what George Clooney is for right Barack?

That would be "you can't get through the day..."

Posted by ddenton

See, if I were nitpicking as you say, I would have pointed that out... but I didn't did i?

Being a good salesman does not qualify you to be President of the United States. No amount of spin from people like Tony Roma is going to change that.

Posted by JOE

And no amount of spin from people like you will convince the people who want real change in the way government is run to vote for McCain, who will only continue a pattern of reckless spending with reckless tax cuts for people who don't need them.

And no amount of spin from people like you will convince the people who want real change

I hope "Change" becomes an outlawed word, banned from all civil discourse after this election.

I don't know what I'm more sick of people saying "Change" or people thinking Obama will actually bring "Change."

See, if I were nitpicking as you say, I would have pointed that out... but I didn't did i?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Sigh. In the end you did point it out. So yes, you're nitpicking, again.

Obama may have less experience than McAncient but at least he had the good sense to know we should have stayed out of Iraq, incidentally so did George Bush's Daddy, and I doubt you would label him as inexperienced. We now have economic problems, over 4000 dead soldiers, and a military dangerously over-extended and not capable of adequately responding to the threat Russia poses.
Seems to me that "judgement" trumps "experience".
Seems to me that a cool head is more important than "experience" especially when that "experience" has been shown to have repeatedly caused Mr. McAncient to make the wrong decision on important matters.

And no amount of spin from people like you will convince the people who want real change in the way government is run

And no amount of spin from people like you will convince the people who want real change in the way government is run are going to believe that an establishment politician like Obama will result in real change. Those who truly wanted real change supported Kucinich or Paul or Barr.

"That's what George Clooney is for right Barack?"

This from the man who objects when anyone brings up the 100 years comment of McCain???

George Clooney made it clear that he is not an advisor of Barack Obama.

I don't know what I'm more sick of people saying "Change" or people thinking Obama will actually bring "Change."

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

What other word would you have us use? Modification?

Obama 08, Modification We Can Believe In!

"Change, hope and unity" - gushy feel-good platitudes that simply don't hold up under scrutiny.

"During his very short tenure in the senate his vote has been among the most liberal. In 2007, he had the most liberal voting record of any senator."

By who's evaluation, Jeff? Is whatever rating organization you're citing truly non-partisan, or are they conservative-leaning?

So, for example, if you are using the National Journal rating, I would be somewhat skeptical.

"Those who truly wanted real change supported Kucinich or Paul or Barr."

That's true, but Obama is the "electable" candidate who will bring some change, perhaps not as much as we would like but a step in the right direction. McCain will bring us more of the same and has said so.

And no amount of spin from people like you will convince the people who want real change in the way government is run are going to believe that an establishment politician like Obama will result in real change. Those who truly wanted real change supported Kucinich or Paul or Barr.

Posted by JeffJ

You can't have it both ways Jeff. Either Obama is "establishment", or he's "inexperienced". Didn't someone say earlier that Obama changes his stance based on his audience? What about you Jeff? Should we let you get away with flip-flopping purely because you're desperate to see Obama fail?

"During his very short tenure in the senate his vote has been among the most liberal."

This is only a negative if you are against progress.
Jefferson was a liberal.
Kennedy was a liberal.
Clinton was a liberal (well until he wasn't).

Most Democrats did not fall for the demonization of the word "liberal."

Rob,

"That's what George Clooney is for right Barack?"

Didya claim your million yet?

>>>
>>>Being a good salesman does not qualify you to be >>>President of the United States.
>>>No amount of spin from people like
>>>Tony Roma is going to change that.
>>>
>>>Posted by JOE at 2008-08-14 11:11 AM
>>>
>>>

Say WHAT? HOW DO you think Bush got elected?

Not only was it a GREAT sales job it was one of the BEST CON JOBS EVERY PULLED on AMERICANS!

"Change, hope and unity" - gushy feel-good platitudes that simply don't hold up under scrutiny.

Posted by JeffJ

And neither did "Stay the Course", but McCain had no problem spewing that line whenever Bush was all over it.

Say WHAT? HOW DO you think Bush got elected?

Not only was it a GREAT sales job it was one of the BEST CON JOBS EVERY PULLED on AMERICANS!

Posted by Monstman at 2008-08-14 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag

Why do people quote a poster and then retort with something that doesn't logically follow what the quoted poster said?

And neither did "Stay the Course", but McCain had no problem spewing that line whenever Bush was all over it.

Posted by ddenton at 2008-08-14 11:24 AM | Reply

There's no way a Mars Bar is better than a Snickers.

During his very short tenure in the senate his vote has been among the most liberal. In 2007, he had the most liberal voting record of any senator.

Bullshit Jeff! Will you please post evidence when you make your assertions? The NJ study was discredited before its ink was dry. I bet you can't tell me one vote that the study was based on cold, right now. Can you?

Who's the parrot here without a shred a fact behind their blatherings?

Did you realize the McCain campaign responded to an Obama ad pointing out that John voted with Bush 95% of the time with the claim Obama voted WITH BUSH over 50% of the time!

So what's it going to be? Liberal or Bush's pal?

You guys are pathetic in your delusional belief that talking points are based on objective fact when all they're based on is the debasement of someone who threatens the right's power base.

I was just cruising McCain's site, and I have two points. One, McCain HAS to hire the firm who created Obama's site. Second, under his "issues" page, he has a picture of an F-14 for his "National Security" section.

I know it's trite, but wouldn't you think they'd use a graphic of a fighter jet that's not being phased out of service?

Obama 08, Modification We Can Believe In!

Posted by ddenton

yeah.... he ain't gonna bring that either...

I'm investing in the company that makes antidepressants or those big airbags that save people from jumping off roofs... If Obama wins those companies are gonna have huge gains by around fall of 2009.

"In 2007, he had the most liberal voting record of any senator."

And in the metric they used, one of his "liberal" votes was when he agreed with McCain, and voted opposite of Hillary. Too precious.

Coincidentally, in 2004, the "most liberal" Senator according to these folks was...no surprise here...John Kerry.

Sigh. In the end you did point it out. So yes, you're nitpicking, again.

Posted by ddenton

Not to nitpick, but you pointed it out... I replied to that post.

Coincidentally, in 2004, the "most liberal" Senator according to these folks was...no surprise here...John Kerry.

Posted by Danforth

How'd that work out for Kerry?

Posted by ddenton at 2008-08-14 11:24 AM | Reply

There's no way a Mars Bar is better than a Snickers.

Posted by 101Chairborne

You can't criticize Obama's "gushy platitudes" then not criticize phrases like "stay the course". Both are meant to inspire their target audience into action, or supporting action.

The end goal is the same.

"In 2007, he had the most liberal voting record of any senator."

Let's don't mention that McCain didn't receive a NJ rating in 2007 because the guidelines say that if you miss more than half the votes in any of the 3 categories, they won't assign a rating.

He missed more than half the votes in 2 of the 3.

"I know it's trite, but wouldn't you think they'd use a graphic of a fighter jet that's not being phased out of service?"

No, for John McCain's web site it is entirely appropriate to have a fighter jet that is being phased out.

We talked earlier about the Obama campaigns new TV ad, which notes, among other things, the fact that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 95% of the time last year. Soon after, the McCain campaign responded by I kid you not telling reporters, In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time.--

I generally find McCain campaign talking points more annoying than amusing, but this is hysterical.

Lets consider some of the reasons this is an unusually dumb thing to say:

1. If the McCain campaign wants to make the presidential race about which candidate voted with Bush more, McCain might as well deliver his concession speech now.

2. Nearly half-- is not in lockstep.-- Many Bush administration pronouncements are not controversial, so every senator is going to vote with the White House line at least some of the time.

3. The McCain gang certainly knew this criticism was coming, and had plenty of time to prepare. This is the best they could come up with.

4. The McCain campaign argues that Obama is the Senates biggest liberal. The McCain campaign argues that Obama has voted in lockstep-- with Bush. Oddly enough, theyre making both arguments at the same time.

The Hill reports that Jesse Jackson may not speak at this year's Democratic Convention. Good Lord, I should hope not, given Jackson's statement that he would like to "cut the nuts off" the Democrats' nominee!

What is remarkable, and I had not realized, is that Jesse Jackson has spoken at every Democratic Convention since 1984--six in a row. It seems unlikely that anyone else in American history can claim that distinction. It is a sign of progress, I guess, that the Democrats "may" no longer see a need to accord this honor to Jackson, about whom the best one can say is that he is not as bad as Al Sharpton.

"How'd that work out for Kerry?"

That was a lie then, too. I have no doubt the metric was skewed to the desired outcome.

That was a lie then, too

Uh huh... and how'd that work out for Kerry?

it didn't take long...
"McCain as a dangerous man" quickly morphed into "Obama once said '57 states'" and "change...ha!"

Unfortunately for the Astroturfers, McCain remains an unstable, dangerous, and "too-old" candidate.

McCain remains an unstable, dangerous, and "too-old" candidate.

Posted by SamBarber

Yawn... unfortunately for Obmaniacs, Barack can't walk on water, won't change anything, and apparently never learned how many states there are in the nation.

Has John McCain changed his mind about staying in Iraq for 100 years Rob???

Yawn... unfortunately for Obmaniacs, Barack can't walk on water, won't change anything, and apparently never learned how many states there are in the nation.

Yeah, but he can draw 200,000+ in Berlin to hear him speak clear sentences and wave American flags while McCain can't speak before his handpicked townhalls without Traitor Joe having to correct him on the differences between Sunnis and Shiites while also informing him Iraq doesn't share a border with Pakistan.

Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School because he was so stupid. McCain was so smart he finished 894 out of 899 students at the Naval Academy. Robs got a point there, doesn't he?

"And no amount of spin from people like you will convince the people who want real change in the way government is run to vote for McCain, who will only continue a pattern of reckless spending with reckless tax cuts for people who don't need them."

"Change." How nice. Good luck getting it from Obama, who is just another major party politician who happens to know how to connect with with a large number of idiots.

Me, I'll be voting for real change as usual by choosing Bob Barr. Too bad Americans who claim to want change don't know where to look for it.

In (McCain's) own narrative, he is always the one man who kept the faith while so many lost their's. Only McCain had the courage to champion Petraeus; only McCain was in intimate contact with Saakashvili before most others had even heard of him; only McCain can rescue Iraq; only McCain will defeat Iran and Russia and China, because only McCain has the moral clarity to see them as the evil they are, and only McCain has the balls to defend the weak and the defenseless (unless, of course, the CIA has them in a locked, dark cell).

That the world and America might need other virtues in the current global context does not occur to him. That these often admirably intentioned crusades might require more prudential reasoning, restrained caution and delicate diplomacy is not in his play-book. What Americans have to decide is whether, after the last seven years, this kind of with-us-or-against-us crusade against enemies near and far is the right approach to the current crisis. or whether it is part of the reason we are already in so deep.---Andrew Sullivan

Another cut and paste...Color me shocked.

"Me, I'll be voting for real change as usual by choosing Bob Barr."

Oh, good old Impeachment for a BJ Bob. He's a real bi-partisan (actually tri-partisan) kind of guy.
But hey, I'm glad he's running, glad you're voting for him.

Yeah, but he can draw 200,000+ in Berlin

Shockingly I don't give a fuck what 200,000 Germans think...

Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School because he was so stupid.

Posted by tonyroma

I've never said he was stupid or unqualified for the job. I'm officially undecided on who I'm voting for... the biggest roadblock right now for voting for Obama is the Ultra-Mega-Mega fruits that support him to the point I'm surprised you guys haven't cut off your genitalia and left earth for the spaceship behind the comet.

For me it will be decided by the debates, or a really cool October Surprise.

BTW Tony... why aren't you being honest about his Berlin speech and how the crowds got to that size.

maybe it had something to do with a free concert from 2 very popular German bands, free beer, pizza and brats before Obama got there? Nah...

Did JFK and Reagan need opening act bands and free beer for their Berlin speeches Tony (Portland too...)?

Just curious?

In the unlikely event of McCain winning the election, what we have to worry about is less what he himself would want, but his sidekicks and advisors, because his faculties are clearly diminishing, and the neo-Cheneys are ready to pounce and control him. His is decidedly unstable.

It might matter if you can show me where these bands draw 200,000 by themselves for a free concert.

Hmmm, can't seem to find any record of them doing so?

Riiiight.....

And they all just decided to stick around and listen to the political dude because they had nothing better to do?

Please try harder, you're not quite there yet....

It might matter if you can show me where these bands draw 200,000 by themselves for a free concert.

Not saying they alone were the reason for the crowd, but are you honestly saying a free concert from two very popular bands, free beer and free food had nothing to do with the size of the crowd?

And Tony if Obama is such an amazing public speaker, why does he need "Warm Up" bands?

"For me it will be decided by the debates, or a really cool October Surprise."

First, what do you mean by a "really cool October Surprise."??

Second, have you heard about the event this Saturday night with both Obama and McCain moderated by some "pastor"??

I saw it advertised on CNN this morning.

Here is a link to the event:

"First, what do you mean by a 'really cool October Surprise.'??"

I suspect for McCain it would be a non-laxative induced bowel movement.

First, what do you mean by a "really cool October Surprise."??

I don't know... I just have this feeling Matt Drudge (or some other GOP guy) has something on Obama. There probably isn't, but it just feels like it... The way they were actively trying to take down Hillary and prop up Obama struck me as odd... maybe its because its been 10 years since Drudge had a world changing exclusive or maybe he just hates the Clinton. I don't know. I just have a gut feeling something cool is on the way (and by "cool" I guess I mean campaign destroying).

Haven't heard about some pastor thing on CNN... I'll scout around.

Here is a link to the event:

www.cnn.com

Posted by danni

Interesting... I thought Obama only wanted the official debates and that's all?

I don't know... I just have this feeling Matt Drudge (or some other GOP guy) has something on Obama. There probably isn't, but it just feels like it... The way they were actively trying to take down Hillary and prop up Obama struck me as odd... maybe its because its been 10 years since Drudge had a world changing exclusive or maybe he just hates the Clinton. I don't know. I just have a gut feeling something cool is on the way (and by "cool" I guess I mean campaign destroying).

NEWS FLASH!!!! There is already plenty "on Obama," but idiot Utopian Kool-Aid drinkers who believe Obuma is the messiah will not be enlightened.

"(and by "cool" I guess I mean campaign destroying)."

Telling.

I don't know... I just have this feeling Matt Drudge (or some other GOP guy) has something on Obama.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Just like someone has concrete "indelible" proof that Michelle used the term "whitey"?

I think it's a bit sad that you wouldn't vote for a candidate purely because you have a gut feeling that someone, somewhere has something negative on them. I'd take someone on their word until such malfeasance can be proven.

I think it's a bit sad that you wouldn't vote for a candidate purely because you have a gut feeling that someone, somewhere has something negative on them.

I just said I'm undecided in this very thread. It was literally like a half hour ago...

NEWS FLASH!!!! There is already plenty "on Obama," but idiot Utopian Kool-Aid drinkers who believe Obuma is the messiah will not be enlightened.

Posted by TheOneBS

NEW FLASH!!! None of what you're referring to has ever been proven to be true! My mother in law forwards the same horse shit you're referring to, because it was forwarded to her by someone else.

Are you too fucking stupid to see this for what it is? It's the same crap used on John McCain when he was running against GWB. Hey, I heard somewhere from a "reputable source" that McCain has a half-black love child! IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!!!

I guess all those videos of Obama-gaffes were all manufactured then.

I'd hazard to bet you also believe 911 was an inside job!

Talk about fucking idiots. Go get in line and get your Kool-Aid DorkDenton!

Careful DDENTON, musn't upset Theo Nebs with those pesky old facts. You'll upset his carefully constructed alternate reality that his meds won't be able to compensate for.

I guess all those videos of Obama-gaffes were all manufactured then.

I'd hazard to bet you also believe 911 was an inside job!

Talk about fucking idiots. Go get in line and get your Kool-Aid DorkDenton!

Posted by TheOneBS

Which Obama gaffes? If you construct a list of them, I'd be willing to bet I could put a longer, more meaningful list from Grandpa McCain.

And as long as you're deflecting, no, I don't think 911 was an inside job.

Calling people you agree with "idiots" doesn't make you any smarter by comparison. And really, DorkDenton? Brilliant.

It might matter if you can show me where these bands draw 200,000 by themselves for a free concert.

Hmmm, can't seem to find any record of them doing so?

Riiiight.....

And they all just decided to stick around and listen to the political dude because they had nothing better to do?

Please try harder, you're not quite there yet....

Posted by tonyroma

Yeah, you're right. I am sure that the free entertainment, free food and free beer had absolutely nothing to do with the size of the crowd. I am quite sure the only reason any of them were there was to listen to Obama, the free stuff was merely an appreciated side event.

"And really, DorkDenton? Brilliant.

Posted by ddenton"

Theo is a little out of sorts, having recently lost his bid to be elected sophomore class treasurer.

You can't have it both ways Jeff. Either Obama is "establishment", or he's "inexperienced".

He's both.

What I mean by establishment is that he's a Democrat through and through - he toes the party line.

I have a general question: Obama is being touted by some as a centrist. I can't think of any issue that he comes down right of center on. The closest I can come up with were his Cosby-esque comments regarding the African American community - and if that is going to be characterized as being right of center, then you lefties are really pathetic.

My curiosity is genuine - I am interested in hearing a conservative advocacy from Obama, and more importantly a conservative VOTE in either the state or federal senate.

All the haters on the right are SO PISSED that their hate and lie machine cant bring down Obama!

Truth is you have burned out the masses with all your BS to the point where people would not beleve any mud you could dig up on Obama EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE!

Don't need to drink Kool-aid to come to this realization.

AMERICA IS BURNED OUT ON THE RIGHT WING LIE MACHINE!

I am quite sure the only reason any of them were there was to listen to Obama, the free stuff was merely an appreciated side event.

Posted by JeffJ

Germans hate beer and sausages and music... especially when its free.

In fact the free concert, beer and brats was probably paid for by McCain to keep the numbers down... would have been half a mil if not for that.

People that love and expect free shit always line up for Obama.
Sincerely,
The 94%

I wasn't aware of the flaws contained within the NJ study.

According to this study, Obama is tied with Biden for 10th most liberal senator:

"I have a general question: Obama is being touted by some as a centrist. I can't think of any issue that he comes down right of center on. The closest I can come up with were his Cosby-esque comments regarding the African American community - and if that is going to be characterized as being right of center, then you lefties are really pathetic.

My curiosity is genuine - I am interested in hearing a conservative advocacy from Obama, and more importantly a conservative VOTE in either the state or federal senate.

Posted by JeffJ

Jeff,

His tax policy is both left and right. He wants to raise taxes on those making above 200k, but, correct me if I'm wrong, lower taxes for all other income brackets.

People that love and expect free shit always line up for Obama.
Sincerely,
The 94%

Corporatists and Wealthy Trust Fundies who expect subsidies and inordinate levels of power always line of for McCain.
Sincerely,
The 2%

He wants to raise taxes on those making above 200k, but, correct me if I'm wrong, lower taxes for all other income brackets.

So, he wants to make the tax scale more progressive. That would be a left-of-center position. When it comes to the tax brackets, the devil is in the details. Is he looking to make the highest bracket so punitive that it discourages wealth production?

I'll do a little digging on this...

"Is he looking to make the highest bracket so punitive that it discourages wealth production?"

Hardly considering wealth was produced even when we had a 90% tax bracket for the wealthiest earners.
Sometimes a high tax rate encourages the use of deductions for investment into job creating enterprise such as alternative energy industries.
That is why the rate cut for capital gains saved money for wealthy people but didn't create the jobs that were produced under Clinton. Investing in the stock market or real estate doesn't create any jobs but it can be profitable and at only half the income tax rate as we pay on labor.

"So, he wants to make the tax scale more progressive. That would be a left-of-center position. When it comes to the tax brackets, the devil is in the details. Is he looking to make the highest bracket so punitive that it discourages wealth production?

I'll do a little digging on this..."

Posted by JeffJ

My example may have been weak. I was looking at it as two seperate things. On the one hand, he wants to lower taxes for some people, which to me is great because I'm one of them, and also right of center. (my gut tells me it won't actually happen, afterall he IS a politician)

Regardless of how you look at it, that wouldn't necessarily make him a centrist, it would just be one position that's not ultra liberal.

On abortion, he's farther to the left than NARAL.

Kind of get the feeling here that this is going to be the first time DR republicans Mouthed off about the Democratic Candidate, but then pulled the lever to vote for him in November.

Sometimes what we say and what we do conflict. But it's okay. Being part of the landslide is half the fun!

Seems history IS doomed to repeat itself! We watched Russia become the Soviet Union, break up, and now they're starting all over. Stick your head in the sand, it STILL won't change the spots on the Leopard!

Ignorance IS bliss and we, collectively, are as blissful as is humanly possible! What makes anyone think they'll settle down? They are getting away with MURDER and nothing is happening, where, when , why will they stop? Human nature? Satisfaction? Desire to live peacefully in this world? All proven to be of no consequence to the BEAR! They have shown their true colors, and we are trying, collectively, to blink in disbelief! It's NOT them, let's negotiate, talk it out, they'll behave!

Seems Neville Chamberlain said it best, years ago,'Well, they promised they'd stop'!

Trust a BULLY to stop bullying, trust a LIAR to stop telling lies! Neither one works!

Regardless of what your College Professor says, some things are ACTUALLY not our fault, so stop believing in Fairy Tales, see the world for the DANGEROUS place it actually is, and come to a well thought out conclusion, one NOT including Obama OR McCain!

We, in this country, have the right and PRIVILEDGE of, standing up to our government, criticizing it, changing it in a timely manner, and demonstrating against just about any/everything anyone can dream of.

There are many countries, in which this is not possible. Think about it, evereyone points the finger at this country, yet we are STILL the number ONE destination for immigration, and employment, WHY is that?
It is not OUR fault every time!

Can you name a country that taxed its way to prosperity!

Thanks, didn't think so!

Can you name one that didn't tax and spend?

Can anyone actually say anything positive about J. McCain.
Please give me a list of great personnal traits.

Canada has a budget surplus
Russia has a boatload of money

Can anyone actually say anything positive about J. McCain.
Please give me a list of great personnal traits.

1. He's not a Democrat.
2. He's not a Democrat.
3. He's not a Democrat.
4. He's not a Democrat.
5. He's not a Democrat.
6. He's not a Democrat.
....and so on...and so on...

Is there really anything else that needs to be said?

"Is there really anything else that needs to be said?"

Posted by TheOneBS

Yes, Theo Nebs. I'm a republican, and I think you're retarded.

The entire country should write in Ron Paul and put a stop to foreign military meddling and the drain on our treasury.

Posted by ride_on

Yes!

"I've never said he was stupid or unqualified for the job. I'm officially undecided on who I'm voting for... "
Rob the Liar

Funny flag for the Liar!

*** Marshall: McCain 'Dangerous and Unstable' ****

.....specially when he forgets his Depends and gives a speech, and the All-Bran farts flare back twenty feet to the row of people behind him......

.....man....when that 3 o'clock call comes and McCain sits up in bed...picks up the phone and lets go a massive RRRIIIIPPPPPEERRRRRR fart.......the Russians are gonna think we've launched something........

The TRUTH from a 12 years old girl from Georgia

Is there really anything else that needs to be said?

About how pathetically and predicably you answered that question?

No, not really. Most folk hereabouts already know you got no game.

Yer one of those ridiculous "I'll hold my nose and vote fer John McCain purely because he's a rethug" types.

Wot was refered to in previous times as a "useful idiot" or a "good German".

No real thought given, no reasoning, no reflection just pure knee jerk Pavlovian politics.

Let there be no doubt...

...McCain IS dangerously unstable.

And that's not all.

He's also the ragaholic posterboy fer PTSD, ALS, ADD, and prolly several STD's if his bio can be believed.

Worse than all that he's sold his soul to the worst elements of the rethug party.

The creeping corporate fascists and the fanatical Talibaptists.

Obama is younger, more idealistic, more historically savvy, more logical in his ideas, more inspirational in speech, more commited to improving the lot of the average American than the elitist gold-digger McSame.

Don't even have to look hard to see it.

Obama rawks and McLame is a cuppa weak tea.

G08ama.

Be Well.

McCain may be nuttier than you realize. Now he has the evangelicals in an uproar because he won't disqualify Tom Ridge, a pro-abortionist, from the Veep short list.

Most folk hereabouts already know you got no game.

Yer one of those ridiculous "I'll hold my nose and vote fer John McCain purely because he's a rethug" types.

Wot was refered to in previous times as a "useful idiot" or a "good German".

No real thought given, no reasoning, no reflection just pure knee jerk Pavlovian politics.

Let there be no doubt...

...McCain IS dangerously unstable.

And that's not all.

He's also the ragaholic posterboy fer PTSD, ALS, ADD, and prolly several STD's if his bio can be believed.

Hmmmmm, these last words give clear indication of one who has a game. Such impeccable scholarship!

What a shill you are!

Almost 200 posts and I can't find a SINGLE ONE which agrees with McCain's belligerent view of further antagonizing Russia over a response they were goaded into making.

Also no criticism of what Obama stated either:

For many months, I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force - not simply Russian troops.

No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.

Isn't this really the point of contention here, and not who likes or dislikes either candidate based on other issues?

For many months, I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force - not simply Russian troops.

No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks. Obama

Said like any Frenchman (or John Kerry) would say it! All words...no action. Symbolism over substance...the mark of an impotent and flacid liberal!

THEONEBS-
When are you sending troops for a war with Russia?

"All words...no action."

Tell us Theo Nebs... what "action" would you expect Obama to take? He is not the President of the united States (yet) so he has no authority to take any action - only to call attention to the situation and try to get those in charge to pay attention.

We await your next sophomoric post with great anticipation.

Hey, Obama's a "community organizer." When he gets into the oval office, I'm sure such stellar experience will chase all the bad guys away.

Or maybe he can just vote "present" when he gets to his oval office desk, as he did so much of the time on Senate votes. I'm sure that will work too!

"Or maybe he can just vote "present" when he gets to his oval office desk, as he did so much of the time on Senate votes. Posted by Theo Nebs"

You mean less than 3% of his total votes, factually-challenged Theo?

PS: Thanks for not making us wait very long for another sophomoric post!

Theo Nebs,

If he had abstained and voted "present", you'd be on his ass. If he'd voted for a bill you opposed, you'd be on his ass. If he voted against a bill you wanted, you'd be on his ass. You can't make everyone happy with every vote, especially twits like you who will never have anything good to say about the opposition candidate.

"There are lies...damn lies...and 3% statistics. Posted by Theo Nebs"

Oh Theo, Theo, Theo. Reading is fundamental. As is math. From your article (which has been posted here dozens of times, btw):

"In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted present,-- effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator."

"They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate..."

139/4000 = 3.25%

And you might want to take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to investigate Illinois legislative strategies and how "present" votes are used there.

PS: you are dangerously close to being downgraded from sophomore to freshman, Theo.

For those of you who cant watch clips online, McCain told an audience at the Aspen Institute yesterday, My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression.--

About a month ago, McCain said the war in Iraq is the first major conflict since 9/11,-- which seemed pretty odd given the war in Afghanistan.

But this is considerably worse. The Cold War effectively ended 19 years ago, and the conflict between Russia and Georgia is the first serious international crisis in that time? Are you kidding me?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has fought (or is fighting) two wars in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and two conflicts in the Balkans. There have been multiple crises in Israel. There was a burgeoning nuclear crisis with North Korea. There is, and has been, a crisis in Darfur. There have been multiple, shall we say, tense moments between Pakistan and India, nuclear powers both. One could make the argument that the attacks of Sept. 11 were, themselves, a serious international crisis.

And yet, there's John McCain, describing a regional conflict between Russia and Georgia as the first serious crisis internationally-- since the end of the Cold War. Do the other crises simply not count? Or does McCain not remember them?

Theo?

Theo??

I'm still waiting for your apology. Don't let me down here buddy.

Its not "Theo", its "theNONE BS", SanAn.

Original, huh?

Shillman, maybe you're unfamiliar with the term, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!"???

You see, use of bogus statistics like your 3% one, are bogus not for their numerical value, but bogus in that they fail to give a true representation of reality.

Maybe a little reading on "figures of speech" or "colloquialisms" might help you when you enter your freshman year in the fall?

All the best to you as you begin your highschool years!

"You see, use of bogus statistics like your 3% one, are bogus not for their numerical value, but bogus in that they fail to give a true representation of reality."

Incorrect Frosh. Statistics often give an accurate representation of reality, as illustrated in this case. And when you add to it some basic knowledge of Illinois legislature tactics, you get a very clear picture.

I know you don't like to read stuff that doesn't fit your existing paradigm, but it might (well, maybe) help keep you from appearing such a fool.

Geez, even the Repubs on here think you're lame.

what is a chickenhawk and why does tonyroma call mcCain one?

Another typical Liberal retort to anything conservative:

Blah blah blah blah Neocon blah blah blah Neocon
blah blah. Blah blah Neocon blah blah blah blah.
Neocon blah blah Neocon blah blah, blah blah Neocon
blah blah blah. Blah blah blah Neocon blah blah
Neocon blah blah. Blah blah, blah blah blah Neocon
blah blah blah blah blah!

Oh, I see, Theo. You thought that was so very clever that you'd put it on multiple threads.

Good thinking Frosh!

Hey Shillman! LOL

I see I'm really bugging you. You seem to be waiting for me...even looking for me. Maybe you should get a job and not spend so much time here? Of course you probably couldn't get your workman's comp. or leach off the public from the welfare teat if you did so...Mr. Educated.

Here's my important tip to you for a much more rewarding life (note: this is always the hardest thing to do for a Democrat welfare recipient). Are you ready? Here it is:

Set your alarm clock to ring before 7 am. When it does so, get your ass out of bed and go to work!

I'm sure you'll thank me later!

"You seem to be waiting for me...even looking for me. Maybe you should get a job and not spend so much time here?"

Truth is, I have assistant that I pay to monitor the DR and alert me when my favorite troll makes another inane appearance and starts making a fool of himself. Meh, its a hobby.

Here's a brief insight into something that will always be just out of reach for you, Theo. I set my alarm every morning for a long time, got up, went to work, and worked hard. Now I have the luxury of working because I want to, not because I have to.

Carry on Frosh!

LOL

"Russia - Georgia: The Big Winner":

"Iran.

1. The neocons are so distracted by the new meme of Russia as Nazi Germany, theyve forgotten all about their old meme of Iran as Nazi Germany.

2. The Bush Administration, attempting to save face as a result of its failed promises to Georgia, appears determined to shame and isolate the Russians. If they keep it up, its unlikely theyll get Russias continued cooperation on Iran.

3. The Russians have every incentive now to cultivate the Iranians rather than sanction them.

If I were the Ahmadinejad, Id be laughing my missile-photoshopping jihadist butt off right about now."

A good President needs to be able to keep our objectives in Iran, and Russia's role in helping us secure them, in his mind even when Russia is attacking Georgia. Some of those objectives, like keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, matter enormously. It's one thing for William Kristol to have the entire rest of the world fly out of his head in the thrill of the moment. It's another thing altogether for our President to.