cool

As soon as Obama announces this Bill Clinton announces he is going on the campaign trail...Hillary is scared.

Obama '08

Spud is unsuprised to find Obama pulling ahead in the money part of the game here.

He's seen as the real candidate for change.
He's seen as the more populist and popular candidate too.

Rightfully so, thinks Spud.

Whether this all translates into even more money, more endorsements, more support and, ultimately, the ticket is still too speculative to call but it looks good for Obama right now, certainly.

Obama '08.

Be Well.

Them poor dems. They don't have any money to fight that huge republican machine. Bo-hoo.

I'd like to think that racial hatred is on the wane in this country.

Who is Bo Hoo?

He needs to show he can come up with some creative ideas and solutions or hire people who can that he can lead.

If this is all he has, I think he is a good speaker, but not experienced enough to put together a well organized campaign.

My guess is he should be consulting with Dashel

Obama breaks Dem money record..... and the best part is that after his loss he gets to keep what he doesn't spend.

That'll make him feel better after Hillary eats his lunch in the primaries.

"There are no surprises in this week's polling on the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. For the sixth straight week, New York Senator Hillary Clinton is in the mid-30s, Illinois Senator Barack Obama is in the mid-20s, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is in the mid-teens.

This week's numbers are Clinton 37% Obama 25% and Edwards 13%. A week ago, it was Clinton 38% Obama 27% and Edwards 16%. Clinton has been within three points of the 35% level in seventeen of the last eighteen weekly updates. However, she has been at 35% or above for six of the past seven weeks. Prior to that, she had been under 35% for six weeks.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 80% of Democrats while 69% have a favorable opinion of Obama and 73% say the same about Edwards."

and the best part is that after his loss he gets to keep what he doesn't spend.

Words from a worried conservative.

Just look at Obama's total number of contributors vs. anyone else in either party, and to think he can still go back to those contributors as they haven't given the max amount yet.

Obama '08.

Where are those numbers jest? I am sure those are national polls. Obama still has time and I have no doubts that he can overtake Hillary. Once he uses this money to get his message out, the numbers will begin to change.

"Where are those numbers jest? I am sure those are national polls."

Rasmussen...they are updated every Monday. New ones will be out later today.

"Obama still has time and I have no doubts that he can overtake Hillary."

I seriously doubt that he can. Hillary has Hollywood, a well-oiled machine, the media...and Bill.

"Once he uses this money to get his message out, the numbers will begin to change."

He's had a pretty good chunk of change already and his numbers have actually been dropping.

Over 52% of Americans say that they would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. This is why the rightwing squawkers continue to push her candidacy as inevitable because they know she is the only Democratic candidate that the Republicans have an ice cube's chance in hell of defeating come November 2008.

All the poll numbers show Hillary with less the 40% of even Democratic support currently and her name recognition exceeds that of anyone running. The facts are only political junkies are paying close attention to these races with a year and a half to go before the actual election that counts. The other candidates are still largely undefined in most people's eyes, and the main thing working against Hillary is time and more information. Its going to be hard for the Republicans to keep their attacks muted until after the primaries, and as more anti-Hillary information begins to flow from the right, the more divisive a Clinton candidacy becomes.

Its going to be a very fun year coming up and if history is a guide, no one truly knows much of anything at this point. Too much road yet to travel.

Jest...

As soon as you actually vote for a Democrat then we'll consider to care about what you think. Why not critique your own sorry slate of losers and let us decide who'll we'll choose to eat your lunch next year, okay?

Which lunatic, anti-science, flat-earther are you backing to get their butt handed to them?

Rasmussen...they are updated every Monday. New ones will be out later today.


So they are national polls which really mean nothing, for example look who was winning national polls this time in '91 - Ross Perot.

I seriously doubt that he can. Hillary has Hollywood, a well-oiled machine, the media...and Bill.


Not all of Hollywood is backing Hillary. Obama has top-notched advisors who are helping devolop sound policy that is more attractive than Clinton's. And the fact that she has to use Bill just shows how intellectually weak she is on top of not being likeable. As for the media, the media didn't back Dean and he was doing just fine until he flaked out - don't expect the same from Obama.

He's had a pretty good chunk of change already and his numbers have actually been dropping.

He has only released two television ads, both in Iowa. He hasn't had a chance to get his message out, but once he does Hillary is toast.

No one wants another corrupt politician who will fill her cabinet with "yes men/women". We just went through eight years of that already. This country needs someone who will bring people together not divide them.

Obama '08.

"Over 52% of Americans say that they would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. This is why the rightwing squawkers continue to push her candidacy as inevitable because they know she is the only Democratic candidate that the Republicans have an ice cube's chance in hell of defeating come November 2008."

Well, according to Rasmussin, it's 47% but so what. However, I'm certainly not pushing her candidacy. I was just responding to Taxman's post regarding Obama's chances.

"Its going to be a very fun year coming up and if history is a guide, no one truly knows much of anything at this point. Too much road yet to travel."

Surely can't argue with that.

"As soon as you actually vote for a Democrat then we'll consider to care about what you think."

Why do you think I care if you care? Actually I HAVE voted for democrats. Voted for JFK, LBJ, Pat Brown against Reagan for the CA governorship and others in local elections over the years. Have you ever voted for a republican or are you just a hypocrite?

"Why not critique your own sorry slate of losers and let us decide who'll we'll choose to eat your lunch next year, okay?"

I haven't critiqued any of "YOUR sorry slate of losers," and I don't have a slate. NONE of the candidates excite me much. I'm still waiting to see if someone comes out of the woodwork. Which one has YOU all atwitter?

Jest...

Sorry for the snipe. You were not deserving of such. Liberal hater had my ire up from another thread.

I think you know the answer to your last question, or you haven't been paying much attention.

maybe osama should try a nice pant suit himslef........

his numbers should go up...after watching the debate and comments afterward that whole shibang seemed to have been done just for him.......or it at least set up for him better than anyone else.
and before one of you throws the rascists arrow out....dont bother.......it just makes sense....if you are a tall green monster and you speak at a tall green monster meeting, you probably have a leg up on others.

BUT WAIT........didnt I read something after the debate that hillary got better reviews even at a predominantly black university?

hhhhmmmmmm.....

maybe the key is bill running out on the campaign trail with her.....I mean he has to give up his cigars.....hint hint.....and other* activities......


*other activities..........do I have to name them?

It's very odd to me that Democrats always whine about politics being "too much about money," and that it only attracts greedy politicians who are ready to serve their corporate donors. Obama has been at the forefront of this type of dialogue, and yet, he's raking in record amounts of campaign money and Democrats appear to be cheering about it.

I've seen Obama try to justify the level of money he gets by throwing out the stat that "90% of his internet donations were $100 or less," trying to make it look as though he's getting all these millions of dollars from the little guy. Couldn't that just be because the only people giving money to campaigns via the internet are those that don't have as much money, and that the big corporate sponsors prefer to send him a check, come to a banquet or hand him a briefcase?

Aside from the hypocrisy, what makes any of you think he'll be any different? Why should we believe that he's going to change politics in America when he's doing what everyone else does, except even better than they do?

Aside from the hypocrisy, what makes any of you think he'll be any different? Why should we believe that he's going to change politics in America when he's doing what everyone else does, except even better than they do?

It seems you miss the importance of what Obama's been achieving. Never before in history have more people given to a single candidate at this point in the race. More people are giving fewer dollars per head than the other candidates are receiving. Big Money has always meant Big Players, not the little guys like you and me.

The problem with money in politics isn't that it exists, its that those with tons of it can spread their influence around and always remain players regardless of who's elected because of their ability to write the big checks. Obama isn't restricted by this calculus because his support is widespread and not dependent upon the Big Bucks donors like Hillary's is.

The politics is already changing because Obama is not beholden to any special interest or corporate donors. His money is coming from the people who want to see him remain different than the rest in this regard. He understands this and he plays to this sentiment in his campaign. As long as the American people continue to fund his rise, he has no need to sell himself to the highest bidder. That is how his campaign is different and why people are attracted to his message as a candidate of real change, not just the rhetoric of change while clinging to the same conflicting relationships as every other politician who's come before.

On those numbers you cite regarding those who wouldn't vote for Hillary... are you factoring in the reality of the primaries?

I mean, in a general election where Reps are able to cast votes most wouldn't vote for her... BUT in the primaries (with just Dem partisans taking part) she is more popular and could pre-empt Obama getting a shot in national presidential election.

Many states today have open elections, so the polling of likely partisan voters only tells a part of the picture, but not the entire picture. I agree that if primaries were held today, Hillary would likely win, but they aren't. They are still 6 months away at the earliest. What Obama's money is going to do is enable him to get his unique message out in the states that are important as earlier bellwethers.

No matter how one slices it, Hillary is a return to the past and Obama is a nod to the future. As the months pass it will become clearer that Americans aren't looking to move backward, they want to move toward a more promising and bright future and this is precisely what the candidacy of Obama offers and stands for to ever increasing numbers of Americans.

Joe's talking point is one that makes me laugh when ever I hear it, and you hear this one a lot on the blogs.

Take a look at the total number of people that have donated. 154,000 donors for a total of 31,000,000 is roughly 202 dollars per donor.

The math is simple, your talking point is crap.

On the flip side (no pun intended) Rudy might have a difficult time getting out of our primaries as #1 but would seem to stand a better chance in the general election with his more "moderate" stances on marriage, abortion, etc. Your thoughts?

One of the responses in Jeff's asks if planes hit where are the engines?

I happened to see the second jet hit and it had engines.

Trees-

"154,000 donors for a total of 31,000,000 is roughly 202 dollars per donor."

LOL. As if we should just be averaging it out that way, pretending as though 154,000 people each gave Obama $202.

Kirkland & Ellis $143,138
Exelon Corp $71,850
Henry Crown & Co $79,500

The math is simple"

It sure is. Look at the numbers.

TonyRoma-

Obama is not as different from Hillary as you would intimate. Of the top ten industries supporting Hillary, nine of them are in Obama's top ten.

HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY)
Top Industries
The top industries supporting Hillary Clinton are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms
2 Retired
3 Securities & Investment
4 Real Estate
5 TV/Movies/Music
6 Business Services
7 Misc Finance
8 Health Professionals
9 Education
10 Printing & Publishing


BARACK OBAMA (D-IL)
Top Industries
The top industries supporting Barack Obama are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms
2 Securities & Investment
3 Retired
4 Real Estate
5 Education
6 Business Services
7 Misc Finance
8 Health Professionals
9 TV/Movies/Music
10 Commercial Banks

Joe...

It is still individuals donating to the campaigns, and not corporate groups as your statistics imply. Everyone has to work in some field of employment, don't they? And look at the broad categories you've forwarded. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 could all be co-joined or overlapped depending upon circumstances.

The numbers are still unprecedented, and at present that is more important. Now, if you see his positions change due to the whims of the groups you've mentioned, then you have a story.

Joe,

To put those top ten lists in the proper perspective: what are the top ten industries, and in what order? Without that, stats get skewed, i.e., the most popular sport in the world will soon be table tennis, from the numbers in China alone. But if, say, Securites & Investment is #17 on the industry list, but #2 & #3 on the donor lists, that tells us a lot more than lists without perspectives.

I never said I had a story. I said I don't see him as any different than anyone else. That's not a story, it's politics as usual. You don't think it's significant that his sixth largest donor is an enormous energy company? Oh, I get it, it's probably just the technicians and service workers each giving $200 to add up to that amount. LOL.

Danforth-

"what are the top ten industries, and in what order?"

I don't know. You may feel free to look it up and share it with the group if you think that's a significant fact.

Joe...

Were you expecting that homeless people would be the number one contributers to Obama? Unless you can directly tie the industries into specific policy positions benefiting their narrow interests all you've done is recite an interesting list, nothing more.

As I said before, if Obama's policies change due to the influence of these groups, I'll be the first to denounce their undue impact. But until then, the fact that people with decent disposable incomes donate to politicans remains quite unremarkable if you ask me.

Of course it doesn't matter to you Tony, even though a few moments ago you were pretending that Obama represents the little guy, is different from Hillary, etc. My lists show that the same people giving big money to Hillary are giving big money to Obama. Of course you'll continue to pretend that somehow his list is different, or that he doesn't care that he's getting the money from them. Why bother pointing these things out to you anyways?

Joe...

Your list shows that people employed in certain industries have donated money, not that "Big Money" has been given to Obama. Are you aware of the limits of campaign giving? If so, then you'd realize that $2300 per person isn't quite so big after all, is it?

Your lists shows nothing but totals. It doesn't prove influence, nor does it detail specific expectations of those donating. Obama continues to state what his candidacy stands for and believes in, and yes, I'll take his word over your statistics every single day of the week because your statistics mean nothing as they stand, except to point out that the same groups contribute to all the candidates, not just Obama.

For you to place a blanket inference on Obama that you can't prove exists, only further shows your bias, not mine. I've already spoken twice to the fact if his positions change to reflect the interests of the groups you've cited, I'll be in opposition, not in agreement with such a diversion on his part. What more am I supposed to say?

Tony...here is the result of last week's polling by Rasmussen, who I have found to be somewhat more accurate than the others. Take a look a their 2004 results if you don't believe that. Note that Clinton has increased her lead from the week before. I know, I know, it can all change.

"Democratic Primary: National Poll

2008 Democratic Presidential Primary
National Poll: Clinton 39% Obama 26% Edwards 13%
Monday, July 02, 2007
Advertisment
New York Senator Hillary Clinton is building an even bigger lead in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows the former First Lady attracting 39% of the vote, her highest total of the year.

Clinton has been gaining ground steadily in recent months. Over the past four weekly polls, the Democratic frontrunner has averaged 38% of the vote. During the four weeks before that, she averaged 35%. That figure was up three points from the preceding four weeks total of 32%.

Clinton also enjoys the lead in the first Rasmussen Reports poll of the New Hampshire primary.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama trails Clinton by 13 points in the latest poll. He trailed by twelve last week. Over the past seven weeks, Obama's total has stayed in the very narrow 25% to 27% range. While his polling numbers are unchanged, Obama topped Clinton in the fundraising category for the second straight quarter.

Clinton leads Obama among both moderate and liberal voters, but her lead is bigger among the moderates."

"It doesn't prove influence, nor does it detail specific expectations of those donating"

Well, let's look at the record. Obama is a big nuclear power supporter, and gets big donations from the industry. He supports ethanol, and gets big donations from the industry.

Well, let's look at the record. Obama is a big nuclear power supporter, and gets big donations from the industry. He supports ethanol, and gets big donations from the industry.

Is this reflective of his constituency in Illinois?

For you to place a blanket inference on Obama that you can't prove exists, only further shows your bias, not mine. I've already spoken twice to the fact if his positions change to reflect the interests of the groups you've cited, I'll be in opposition, not in agreement with such a diversion on his part. What more am I supposed to say?

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-07-02 01:43 PM

How about his distancing himself from his clergyman? Whom he used as his reason for going into public office? I know he used him during his trips to the south and other black dominated venues.

How about his distancing himself from his clergyman? Whom he used as his reason for going into public office? I know he used him during his trips to the south and other black dominated venues.

If I'm not mistaken, certain spokespersons from the right have erroneously accused this man of being a "black separatist", hence Obama's distancing from him on certain points of disagreement between the two of them.

"How about his distancing himself from his clergyman?"

He has consistently said there are things about Wright that he disagrees with. Is he required to subscribe to every word and position his minister advocates?

Wright introduced Obama via video at his speech at the UCC General Synod just a week ago.

He has consistently said there are things about Wright that he disagrees with. Is he required to subscribe to every word and position his minister advocates?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-07-02 02:06 PM |

According to Obama he was his mentor and had done nothing but praise for him at his pro black venues rallies. Why is that? Now they have tape of him spouting the anti whitey mantra and all of the sudden Obama does't seem to mention him any more. Was he using him for the black voters and now distancing himself for the white and independant vote?

"all of the sudden Obama does't seem to mention him any more."

Did you miss the part where I just said Wright introduced Obama at the UCC General Synod just ONE WEEK AGO. I don't think that was "for the black voters".

Crispee...

Come on...is it so hard to understand how a person can be inspiring when quoting from Scripture, telling his flock to be better representatives of Jesus here on Earth? Now isn't it also conceivable that this same person's feelings on secular issues might be less than mainstream?

Don't forget why Obama held him in high regard to begin with. I doubt that it was because the man holds certain racially insensitive positions. And as SanAntonio mentioned, Obama just had him introduce Barack last week, so he still has him involved in his campaign on some level, doesn't he?

The Rev. Wright in his own words:

"Black women are being raped daily in Africa. One white girl from Alabama gets drunk at a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country and that stays in the news for months."

"Nine-eleven, he says: "White America got their wake-up call after 9-11. White America and the Western world came to realize people of color had not gone away, faded in the woodwork, or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."

"The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism." He compares Israel to South Africa repeatedly. He attacks Israel as a racist state."

Barack Obama's pastor is Wright-fully radical
Dr. Bob's got details:

Reverend [Jeremiah A.] Wright and his church are proponents of what is called liberation theology, in which Christianity is defined (redefined, actually) primarily as a means of identifying with and liberating the oppressed. It has deep roots in atheistic Marxism, especially in the concept of class struggle and the centrality of violence in overcoming oppression. Liberation theology sprouted from Catholic and Marxist syncretism in Latin America, and has subsequently spread to many liberal Protestant denominations as well. Its core premise -- the centrality of class warfare in human relationships -- is inherently incompatible with the unity of Christians in Christ, and this distortion of Christian doctrine was gently but devastatingly rebutted by former Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in his doctrinal instruction on the topic. It's a long read, but well worth your time, if you're interested in this subject.

Did you miss the part where I just said Wright introduced Obama at the UCC General Synod just ONE WEEK AGO. I don't think that was "for the black voters".

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-07-02 02:14 PM

Because Wright is officiating at a wedding Saturday, he won't be on hand in Hartford to hear Obama. But at a recent church conference in Virginia, Obama singled Wright out in the audience for introducing him ''to someone incredible, Jesus Christ.''

If this is the venue you meant, it looks like Wright was not there.

This nomination will soon turn on a few things as long as the little guys stay in the race and don't give up.

Hillary is extremely well-recognized, and she gets a certain loyalty-to-Bill rainbow around her, as well locking up strong feminist and DLC backing. She is certainly not un-beatable, however, because there is a surplus of Bush/Clinton fatigue and because she is relatively "unknown" for a person so well recognized (i.e., "What does she really stand for?" "In a modern-day crisis like JFK had in Cuba, or as W created with Iraq, and has now created with Iran, how would she react?" "What is her character make-up and does it make a difference?")

Obama now enjoys almost as much recognition. His strength is that he's charismatic, and he's NOT Hillary. Still he is relatively "junior" and a relative "unknown" as well.

Edwards is honest and trying hard, but he is alienating. It appears that his campaign won't gain any lift because he's not seen as having gravitas over more than a few "domestic" issues, and no international affairs expertise, which is what is needed to lift the US from it's Bush Cheney black cloud in that arena.

This brings up two interesting and fairly well-qualified Democratic little guys -- Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd. (Sure, there's Joe Biden, too, but he's for another note.)

Bill Richardson used to be Ambassador to the UN under Bill Clinton. He was also a Secretary of Energy when the Atomic Energy spying scandal broke out. On international affairs, Richardson has a great record for internationalism. He would do well at bringing the world back to the "Everyone Loves America" tent.

Chris Dodd, similarly, has outstanding international credentials, serving on various committees fro a long time dealing with the issues and understanding the relevance of both "soft power" (he is a Peace Corps veteran) and "hard power" (his state is birthplace and home of the nuclear Navy). He is neither a war-monger like the Bush Cheney militarists, nor a patsy like some GOPs would make all DEMs appear. He also understands the importance of international business and, like Hillary's; his constituency includes some of the most successful international business people in the world!

So, if the DEM dwarfs like Richardson or Dodd get their acts together, we could have a second string waiting for the inevitable character attacks on the 1st stringers, and the DEMS could still field a very viable (perhaps MORE viable?) second string of candidates.

"If this is the venue you meant, it looks like Wright was not there."

Read again, carefully this time. I said he introduced Obama via video. Yes, he was officiating at a wedding and could not be there in person.

And just a point of information. I don't agree with everything Wright says either, but I'm sure not taking any lessons in Christianity from Ratzinger/Benedict either!

"Black women are being raped daily in Africa. One white girl from Alabama gets drunk at a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country and that stays in the news for months."

And how many manhunts have we seen for black young women that go missing in America? Do these women receive specials and 24/7 news coverage?

"The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism." He compares Israel to South Africa repeatedly. He attacks Israel as a racist state."

And what here isn't true in part? Zionism is radical racism and hegemony, it isn't synonomous with the government of Israel, only those proponents of it as a domestic and foreign policy. For peaceful, non violent Palestinians, what has Israel done to improve their lot over the last 40 years?

Its core premise -- the centrality of class warfare in human relationships -- is inherently incompatible with the unity of Christians in Christ, and this distortion of Christian doctrine was gently but devastatingly rebutted by former Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in his doctrinal instruction on the topic.

And the very existence of the Roman Catholic Church only furthers a very narrow, conservative interpretation of Jesus' teachings. The leaders in Rome live in opulence and excess while many missionaries struggle to bring fresh water and improved agriculture to the impoverished. With which group would Jesus himself willingly join and help prosper if he were alive today? Which group would he deem to be doing "his work"?

Tony,
His praise of Wright is just another of many hurdles Obama will have to overcome. IMO there are just way to many negatives the oppostion will use against him. The fact he is only 44, a Jr. Senator from the most corrupt State Government, his lack of experience in international matters, his anti gun stand,a middle name of Hussein...

As for the record donations, I only have to say Howard Dean.

Read again, carefully this time. I said he introduced Obama via video. Yes, he was officiating at a wedding and could not be there in person.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-07-02 02:41 PM

San,
Yes I missed the post about his introduction. Like I posted to Tony above. I am not suggesting anything about Wright. I am simply pointing out the quandry Barrack has.

As for the record donations, I only have to say Howard Dean.

Dean wasn't light years from where Obama is today. And a certain person named Abraham Lincoln also came from Illinois and had similar experience at the time of his election as does Obama.

Can your remind me how that turned out?

And isn't it particularly bigoted to judge someone by the name their parents gave them as though it defines who and what they are? Come on Crispee, there's hardly an American alive that doesn't know Barack's middle name is Hussein. Congratulations. That puts him in the same boat as millions of other Muslims around the world that don't want to blow up America. See, he couldn't run for President unless he was a native born American, so again, what's the point?

On a more humorous note:

McCain to cut 50-100 campaign staff jobs. He raised 1/3 of what Obama raised, and has a puny $2 million cash on hand.

Bugler, sound Taps.

"a middle name of Hussein..."

Of course we wouldn't want to mention that George Bush's middle name is WALKER... the same name as John WALKER Lindh - the American Taliban!

Pretty much as valid a comparison... cheap and petty.

Come on Crispee, there's hardly an American alive that doesn't know Barack's middle name is Hussein. Congratulations. That puts him in the same boat as millions of other Muslims around the world that don't want to blow up America. See, he couldn't run for President unless he was a native born American, so again, what's the point?

Posted by tonyroma at 2007-07-02 03:06 PM

Once again Tony anyone who points out the negatives of Obama is a racist right wing pig right? Maybe if you took the time to read what I posted, you won't waste any energy on trying to discredit what I posted. For someone who seems to have plenty of knowledge and is on top of politics,how you can't see the negatives and how they will be used against Barrack is beyond me. This is the day and age where you can't sneeze without saying excuse me. Look at fucking George Allen? You are in for a big world of hurt if you don't think the other side will use every negative and rumor about Barrak against him. Welcome to the world of sleaze politics.

Pretty much as valid a comparison... cheap and petty.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-07-02 03:16 PM

To quote you San,
Read what I wrote carefully. If you don't think that will be used against him you are a fool. Regardless if it is cheap and petty, it is fukcing politics.

Crispee...

Fox News and many rightwing pundits have been saying "Hussein" for almost a year. Its old news, thats all I mean.

And I never claimed anyone using it was racist. Its called politics, isn't it?

The only thing I think you're downplaying is that Obama's campaign is based upon change, and moving toward a better tomorrow. While that sounds extremely nebulous, its very empowering to a large swath of people. His candidacy is based on leaving those types of politics behind along with all the problems they came attached to such as polarizing personalities. Petty attacks will only make Obama appear further above the fray to a certain extent. Not only are these attacks expected, they're desired to further differentiate him from just another politician if he can maintain this posture.

"a middle name of Hussein..."
Posted by crispee_oc

You forgot his big ears, as long as you're mentioning things of importance.

Am I alone in feeling as though I am looking at the report of the bidding of the silent auction of the Presidential candidacy?

You mean with 154,000 seperate "bidders" where the winning bid averages out to $202?

Gosh, I never thought that a huge and diverse number of average Americans, pulling out a few dollars to help support their candidate of choice could be called buying the president with a straight face.

You guys are really funny.

"You guys are really funny."

Posted by TreesGoneWild




Best loony site on the web.
I hope Rogers is making a little money.

On the flip side (no pun intended) Rudy might have a difficult time getting out of our primaries as #1 but would seem to stand a better chance in the general election with his more "moderate" stances on marriage, abortion, etc. Your thoughts?

Posted by OohRah at 2007-07-02 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rudy could do much better if he stopped talking about "terrrr" all the time. He needs something else. He acts as though he was some brilliant mind on 911 and we need him to save us. He was on the streets that day because the command bunker that he was told not to put into the WTC was located there (after the 1st attacks).

He could be doing better if he put away the fear and started talking positive change.

Another non-story from the lazy media.

I highly doubt that a Black, Muslim will be elected to the Presidency. Stranger things have happened though.

Nothing for nothing but Obama raised more than the 3 GOP leading candidates COMBINED.

Or, in the words of the RNC, "The darkie is gettin' ahead, somebody grab a torch and a rope!"

"I highly doubt that a Black, Muslim will be elected to the Presidency."
Since there isn't one running, it would be kind of difficult. Unless you consider the United Church islamic.

Obama yo mama. The next victim of the culture of corruption.