Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Obama and his supporters could not make me more sick if they personally came and stuck their fingers down my throat!
Thanks for giving it up to McCain! Obama will never win, ever!
At least I can sleep at night knowing I never voted for Bush or Obama!
By throwing latte and birkenstocks at the enemy?
Damn pansy ass yuppies!
Please Salon, if these last two posts by two (one?) flaming trolls aren't enough reason for you to get rid of anonymous posters then I guess it will never happen.
Ted
Hillary doe snot
Indeed, Obama picked Lieberman as his mentor when he first entered the U.S. Senate.
>
>@RJforHRC
>
>Bullshit. Obama's Senate mentor is Senator Richard Durbin >(D-IL). Durbin has stood strong against Bush from Day 1. Unlike >Hillary, he never supported the Iraq resolution so he's never >had to avoid the issue and make hair-splitting excuses for >himself.
>-- siebecker
>
"Obama is winning in because he has a very well managed campaign, and the voting n public wants NEW ideas, not more of the same."
It's this sort of hyperbole that drives me crazy about too many Obama supporters. The "voting public" has not busted down the doors screaming for Obama contrary to popular myth. He has, what, a one percent lead in the popular vote? And some of that lead has absolutely nothing to do with actual policy or "new" ideas but is a matter of demographics. That's hardly a huge embrace of Obama or a huge rejection of Hillary. And of course the same could be said the other way (though not the skewed vote).
The "voting public" has basically split right down the middle, give or take a few votes. Let's not pretend this is something it isn't. And with several big states left to go, we actually don't know what the "voting public" will end up saying. It's possibly Obama will take Texas and PA and OH by huge margins, along with states he's expected to win (Miss, etc) and then maybe, maybe, one could say the "public" has spoken. But if he squeaks out wins in all those, or if Hillary takes small wins in Texas, OH, and PA, which would translate to more popular votes than the other states left, then we're left with a split or possibly with Hillary having had more votes.
Most likely what we'll end up with is two good candidates, each of whom has roughly equal levels of support in the party.
Obama has the misperception of momentum on his side, which is highly unfortunate, and highly unfortunate if he becomes the nominee for the party. A large reason for his wins is due to republican crossovers, who have no intention of voting for him in the general election.
Witness Rush Limbaugh's calls for such a thing, as well as across talk radio and on republican websites.
Thus, the Democratic Party will have a candidate with no experience, but fine rhetorical skills -- who steals his material from other people like Duvel Patrick and John Edwards.
So the republicans have managed to create a myth of momentum that'll probably die as people get to know this dry hole. Crying shame.
It seems to me the Clinton campaign has decided their tactic is to:
1. Go negative. Attack.
2. If that doesn't work, double down and increase your attacks 200%.
3. Rinse, repeat.
...but what's funny about this is that during this primary season she has decided against wooing the base, just increasing her attacks against her main opponent. Add to that abusive shills that have been commissioned to attack posters on all progressive sites, and to call in every progressive talk show and spout more negative talking points.
Yet, the more she and her hired thugs do this, the more it alienates the Democratic base. So why she is doing this simply makes no sense to me. I thought she was pretty smart.
Call the waaaaaambulance.
How on earth can the fact that he has won the last 10 primaries and caucuses by between margins of between 17 and 52 points each constitute an advantage that is somehow "unfair"? Obama is winning. Hillary is the Democratic answer to Mike Huckabee.
Can it not be possible that people are voting for Obama because they actually want him to win?
Regardless of what anon. w/PhD may have said, you still manage to give us mature people a bad name. Calling somebody out for being younger than you -- basically for not having the good judgement to have been born in the 1930s if your "seen elections since FDR" comment is to be taken at face value. Hell, I've "seen" every election since FDRs, and all that means is I'm probably too damned old to get next to an attractive 30-something with a PhD or even a high school diploma, and apparently you're older than me. It has nothing to do with my political insight. Yours either. Compared to you I'm also "wet behind the ears." I'd love to think so.
"Obama a disaster" is nothing but a groundless, baseless and utterly untethered pronouncement from someone who likes to call younger, better educated adults "wet behind the ears." I'm sorry, but no one can magically catch up with you in age nor wisdom.
Actually it kinda sounded more like Kilroy was high.
You had me up til the following parts of your argument (not that you asked me or even addressed me, but you've been doing a good job of making Le Castor keep coming up with empty responses. I've been reading anyway and nobody can stop me! Mwahahaha!!):
Fourth, there I would have to be convinced as to the level of threat posed by the religious extremists, and that they are indeed religious extremists.
Saddam, as bad as he was, was not a religious extremist and the threat he posed previously, had been neutred.
So...other kinds of extremists are allowed to have WMDs? They are only dangerous in the hands of religious extremists? Well then we'd better duck and cover, 'cause our fearless leader, who is some sort of religious extremist, has 26 times as many WMDs (of the intercontinental ballistic variety) at his command as any other religious extremist on the planet. While Pakistan could lob something unsavory into the interior of India they sure as hell couldn't land one here. Oh yes, I keep forgetting, when we bring our troops back from Iraq those religious extremists are going to follow them back here with those weapons strapped to their backs. The Al Qaeda Navy strikes again.
OK,back to flogging
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
