1) I think McCain will do better on our civil liberties than Bush has.

2) I don't think "pointless deaths" is accurate. It's also very insulting to the folks serving over there.

3) I think the civil war that breaks out after the US leaves will leave tens of thousands more dead Iraqi civilians. IMO, pulling-out of Iraq decreases the US causalties over there, but it increases the number of Iraqis who will die.

4) You've got a point on conservative judges. I'll live with it, I guess.

5) Those are "life lessons", I guess. I was young and idealistic once, myself. It'll be good for those youngin's to learn about the real world.

I'll be voting for McCain not out of bitterness about Clinton, but because Obama is too far "left" for me. For this election, Clinton has always been my first choice, and McCain my second. I notice I've always voted for the candidate closest to the "center", regardless of party.

But I'll still vote DEM on the rest of the ballot.

From what all the talking heads on the tv have said for months, is that once the nominee was decided, the nominee controls the Credentials Committee.

So if things had gone as planned for Clinton, and she wrapped-up the nomination after Super Tuesday, she would have directed the Cred-Comm to seat the MI and FL delegations however they wanted. And then MI and FL would feel like they're part of the process.

I expect Obama will do the same thing, once he gets enough super-dels to clinch the nomination.

It seems incredibly obvious to me that the DNC royally screwed-up in imposing the 100% penalty to MI and FL in the first place. But we just have to suck-up to IA and NH! They're sooooo special!

It was a stupid thing to do to a couple of important swing states, not to mention the clusterf#ck that was bound to result if there was a competitive primary.

People continually pointing out "But they broke the rule", makes me think "the rule was mistake, and it's never too late to correct a mistake".

Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel.

Could Obama supporters please stop writing "Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot".

If a candidate takes his name off of a ballot, people can't vote for him. Duh. That was their choice. There was no DNC "rule" to take a candidate's name off.

If one doesn't make the effort to vote, one shouldn't complain.

--------

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127--177580--,00.html

OCTOBER 9, 2007

Four Democratic presidential candidates - U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards - filed affidavits with the Michigan Department of State requesting that their names be removed from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic Party Primary ballot.

This means four Democratic candidates are still on the Michigan ballot: U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton D-N.Y.), U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Ala.).

is a pretty silly statement.

that'll get MoveOn.org all fired-up!

"He's worse than we are".

Not very hope-ariffic.

because _most_ of our fellow citizens support it!

The vast majority of Americans _love_ war; We're pretty good at it, too!

What they hate is _losing_ wars, which the incompetent fucks Rummy, Wofie, Franks, and Cheney ran the first four years in Iraq.

Now that things are going better in Iraq, (because we now have competent SECDEF and Generals), The Bush Doctrine is fine-and-dandy with most folks. Get 'em before they get us.

Obama's actually smart to keep his supposed opposition under-wraps. It was useful to appeal to the bat-shit crazy liberals during the DEM primary, but certainly not in the General Election.

Just ask "Senator" Ned Lamont!

Bethiewethie: I wonder, why did early Americans, largely illiterate, embrace the leadership and values of our founders, towering intellectuals and experienced individuals. Sure there was controversy at the time about the wealth and stature of, say, Washington and Jefferson, but much more admiration (adoration too) than not.

Well, back then, only white males were allowed to vote.

Just sayin' . . .

Apparently, she knows less about the economy than even McCain.

But, she's trying to get her progressive street-cred back, so she has to criticize anything that McCain proposes.

And, didn't Hillary support the 9/11 Commission?

Here's two little words . . .

Dump the loser.

Okay, that's three, but still better than trying to get through Cary's article!

Gary at his lying-sack-of-shit best!

And the lack of positive articles _is_ pretty depressing.

I guess pushing "Hate and Anger" is how Salon plans on overtaking HuffPo.

"We're the FreeRepublic.com for the arugula-and-wheatgrass crowd!"

Obama's good at campaigning and giving speaches to adoring crowds.

McCain's good at working across the aisle in bi-partisan fashion to solve the nation's problems.

That's another way of looking at it.

Maybe he and Scarlett Johansson can just text everyone their thoughts.

Obama seems to think it's a good thing to just let the market fucking crash. The worse the economy is for the country, but better it is for him getting elected.

Obama supporters I know have called Hillary a "cunt". Not even counting all the ones posting here at Salon.

And, the Obama supporters felt completely justified calling her that. So, maybe they are losers.

And Obama's gonna fix that by doing what, exactly?

Back to "Remedial Reading Comprehension" for you!

I thought it was all Hillary's fault.

That's what everyone here was saying a couple of months ago.

Oh, I'm sure a couple of months from now, it will be (FILL IN THE BLANK)'s fault. Since (FILL IN THE BLANK) will be the latest and greatest enemy of Obamatons.

The mirror images of the far-left hating Palin, and the far-right hating Obama.

Kinda undercuts the whole "oooh, they're so evil" bullshit each side spits out.

I guess the same personality types are attracted to the fringes of society, huh?