...and thinks your willy is too small.

IE:

After, K-Street, Alphonso Jackson, Blackwater (After Whitewater it was only a matter of time) no bid contracts and half the economy of Alaska, do you really think government isn't selling your personal information to spammers?

I am one of those vile posters, and I have to say that I misjudged your initial post.

I had read it as yet another "One rule for Obama supporters, and another for Hillary supporters."

Then I saw you take on Shawn for his race bating.

I know that as I am about as far from polite on this board as anybody can get, and thus my respect probably means nothing to you.

But you have it. I appologise for all the angry words I have directed your way.

By saying that you will vote McCain over Obama you have demonstrated that you are not voting on issues (because Obama and Hillary are very close on the issues) and you are not voting on experience (Because McCain has more experience than Hillary, and thus would be getting your vote in the first place.)

You have demonstrated that you are voting based on personality politics. You are demonstrating the precise emotional decision making which Hillary supporters accuse Obama supporters of displaying.

Now if you don't support Obama that is fine. Plenty of reasonable people don't.

But do not claim that you will vote McCain before Obama and then try and sell the idea that you are voting on anything other than your emotions.

Her qualifications are an issue. She voted in favour of the Iraq war without reading the NIE, that throws into doubt her whole claim on experience.

In fact the whole experience claim is on very shaky ground, considering that Obama totals more years in elected office and Hillary's claims of foreign policy keep getting undermined by her statements on foreign policy.

Further she voted in favour of the flag burning amendment and has a history of going after computer gaming in a manner which is reminiscent of the Jack Trick tracts. This raises concerns from my point of view, based on her priorities.

Plus, over the course of the campaign she has endorsed McCain (Saying something along the lines of "I have years of experience, McCain has years of experience, Obama has a speech.")

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/hillary-attack-obama.php?page=1

Where have the strong candidates gone?

They are still there. The trouble is that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by centrist weasels.

If FDR ran today, he would be painted as a Quixotic loony lefty latte liberal with issues over his ability to not cheat on his wife (Prior to contracting polio of course.)

His "Nothing to fear" speech would be mocked roundly by Hillary Clinton, who would say something along the lines of "Maybe I have lived too long..."

Obama would comment that this election would be between a woman, a black man, and FDR.

Basically, the Democratic and Republican parties have systematically prevented any possibility of another FDR ever appearing in eithe party over the last fifty years, because the idea of a stone cold leftwinger getting into power and actually fixing anything is more frightening to them than anything you could imagine.

I fail to see the criticism. Don't we kind of want someone who will, you know, play to win when it comes to the general?

If by "Chicago hack" you mean he was a lawfully elected state senator in an American state, and then went on to become a senator for that state on a federal level then yes he was.

Of course, his record at the time included things like much needed ethics reforms, leading the charge on taped confessions, and co-sponsoring tax credits for low income workers. Real bad guy this Obama.

As to his wife not being what one would term a uber patriot, I view that in her favour. After all, the manic flag humpers have not exactly done America much good. About all they have achieved is turning the flag into their collective cum rag.

That said, this election is not for Obama's wife, no matter how much I might like her. Fortunately, Obama has demonstrated the same instinct for not playing up to patriotic rah-rah lines.

Obama is no less fervant in wanting to win.

The difference is that he has hit upon the more effective campaign strategy - right down to learning from history and not ignoring the smaller states.

That he isn't as obvious in his slams of Hillary is not a signature of him being less of a fighter, it is just a sign that he is better at it.

Your claims of Obama's inexperience conflict with your side's criticising him for having attained elected office in Chicago.

Basically, stop lying. It is transparent, and it doesn't do your candidate any favours.

About the only "centrist" to win an election in the last 100 years was Bill, and he ran as a liberal.