Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
The history of Obama's sudden rise in Illinois and national politics is readily available, if you simply look. It's a history which involves cunning, calculation, and ruthlessness, all of which have been documented in detail.
One of my major problems with Obama's supporters is their near total refusal to take a closer, more objective look at him. If you still like the guy warts and all, fine, I have no problem with that. But conspiring to create a god where none exists is not fine; I have no desire to be at the mercy of someone else's myth.
Hillary says, "my opponent only wants children to have health insurance."
Why is anyone even taking her candidacy seriously any more? How does she utter nonsense like this and still get to be considered a contender?
You are indeed a cult follower of Obama.
You are the one who drank the kool- aid
You are the one who faithfully follows the talking points given by
your master: Barack(worship ME or else!) Obama
"casting aside Senator Clinton's very real chance at success."
HA! What chance now?
Jennalex (sic) and KateTex, you guys/gals are just sour about your candidate being out-smarted by the "wylie" state senator from IL. Hillary BLEW her chance, and she and supporters like you are crying foul now. Why? It wasn't just because Obama ran a better campaign, it's also because she DIDN'T TAKE OBAMA SERIOUSLY!
There are going to be fabulously detailed books about Hillary's incompetently-run campaign in the next few years (the sooner, the better). I hope when that day comes that you 2 go out and get those books and read about how Hillary let the nomination slip out of her fingers...and hopefully you'll come to the realization that maybe Hillary just wasn't cut out to be a President, based on how shoddy she ran her campaign...which is kinda sad, because the Clintons were always better campaigners and political rulers.
Mark my words...
Are you conspiriring to win the candidacy for crazy?
KateTex: "One of my major problems with Obama's supporters is their near total refusal to take a closer, more objective look at him."
Okay, so post some links to some good articles from reputable sources! I will read them. Bring on the background material! Just don't link us to factcheck2's idiotic hit piece. I would love to get some good links from the Chicago Sun-Times or Tribune or whatever, as long as they're fully sourced, balanced pieces of writing. I don't doubt that Obama is a politician with all that the word implies, but I do think he's on the good side of the measurement that goes from "low corruption" to "high corruption." Obama actually takes the core values of the Constitution seriously and I haven't seen any egregious instances of him selling out his own principles for cycnical political purposes. You are welcome to provide material that will disabuse me of that, but don't expect me to take you at your word when you say "it's out there -- somewhere."
KateTex: "If you still like the guy warts and all, fine, I have no problem with that. But conspiring to create a god where none exists is not fine; I have no desire to be at the mercy of someone else's myth."
Blah blah blah "myth" blah blah blah "idolize" blah blah blah
Josie Ortez: "first off: Barack (worship ME or else!)Obama hasn't EARNED squat - who is pulling his strings?"
Obama hasn't earned squat? Really? He's the front-runner for president at this point, if poll numbers and total votes are any indication, and he's made a solid showing in 20-plus debates, has a solid record as a senator, has organized one of the most efficient and effective campaigns in decades, and he hasn't earned squat? Well -- you are entitled to your opinion.
You offered a grab bag of rhetorical questions. Let me focus on just one of them:
Josie Ortez: "Why did he endorse war hawk Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Senate race over progressive Ned Lamont?"
I hadn't heard about this, so I Googled it. I found nothing. But what I DID find was interesting -- Ned Lamont has endorsed Barack Obama! (Kind of an interesting turn, if as you say Obama snubbed Lamont, isn't it?)
Here is a link for you:
Ned Lamont: Why I'm supporting Barack
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ned-lamont/why-im-supporting-barack_b_80986.html
Please read and discuss.
Okay, I was curious about what Josie Ortez said about Obama endorsing Lieberman. So I Googled some key words and here's what I found out:
-- Obama endorsed Lieberman over Lamont
-- Lieberman endorsed McCain over Obama
-- Lamont endorsed Obama
I am getting dizzy.
Calling the people who support Obama a cult of sorts is probably a part of the reason why Clinton has been faring so poorly of late. I suspect that the Clinton approach to campaigning is doing much to drive people towards Obama.
I don't know if the Clintons and their followers realize this, but after 16 years of "us vs. them" political warfare, people are tired. They're tired of being told that the other side is the devil, or fools, or in this case, deluded cultists. They're tired of hearing that if they don't vote for you, their state somehow isn't "significant."
Look, I get that the Clintonites are hungry for a Restoration of sorts, and I get the temptation to do whatever it takes to win. They've been fighting in the trenches (some might argue in the gutter) for so long, going tit for tat with the Republicans, that they've lost faith in another way. But I can't follow them down there.
As my username suggests, I'm a gushy moderate. I have Republican friends and Democratic friends, and we get along quite well. Sure, I find some of their ideas goofy, as I'm sure they find some of mine. But I don't spend my time belittling them, and I certainly don't think they're evil or even morally suspect. Instead, I argue my case and work to bring them to my side. Failing that, we try to come up with an acceptable compromise.
This, I believe, is where the country is at. They recognize that we have some serious problems and they're not interested in these internecine political battles for some slight advantage. They believe that a solution to long standing problems such as health care, social security, Iraq, and on and on need buy-in from a broad cross-section of the country. These aren't problems you can solve with 50 percent plus 1 of the vote.
I don't think it's a coincidence that after 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush politics that the two likely nominees for the major parties are the ones who are speaking most to the political middle.
Sure, the Obama campaign is something of a phenomenon. But why shouldn't it be? When was the last time the Democratic party made a serious attempt at talking to the so-called "red states," rather than just simply writing them (and by extension their concerns) off? I hear Bill Clinton talk about these people needing a President and these people not, or Mark Penn talking about "significant" states, and I just shake my head.
I've seen the movie where one side fights to annihilate the other. It ends in a 16 year stall in the health care debate and no serious work on social security reform and round after round of finger pointing.
And people wonder why young people haven't come out to vote until now...
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"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
