I have repeatedly seen the argument that Senator Obama is not qualified to be president. I humbly disagree with the idea that a more prolonged exposure to Washington politics would make him a better candidate. It seems to me that it would be just the opposite...his short tenure ensures that he has had little time for any bad habits to become entrenched. In addition, that argument ignores the fact that a president who is willing to listen to his multitude of advisers (unlike GW) would never be making decisions in an unenlightened vacuum.

What Obama DOES have is a comprehensive grasp of the English language, the ability to speak coherently, and a more than passing acquaintance with the United States Constitution. I believe that those things are VITAL qualifications for someone running for president and who will ultimately represent our country to other world leaders.

Chris you may want to add an Update comment to your Virginia race, just for those of us that keep your lists. :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/14/AR2008061401831.html
HAMPTON, Va., June 14 U.S. Senate candidate Mark R. Warner took himself out of the running as a potential vice presidential candidate this year, telling about 2,000 delegates at the state Democratic convention that he will say no if Sen. Barack Obama offers him a spot on the ticket.

It's hard for me to believe that the voters of Minnesota could elect Al Franken as their Senator. This sleazeball was at the helm of the Democratic Party AirAmerica Radio station that ripped off the Harlem Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club Charity of $850,000 by diverting their charity money to the foundering Air America Radio station in order to keep them on the air. This boys and girls club charity served mostly black children, the elderly, and AID's sufferers of Harlem and because of this Democratic Party scam went under and is no more. How any Minnesotan could consiter voting for Al Franken who reportedly received a million dollars a year diverted to him from this childrens charity, is beyond my understanding.
Is there something in the water in Minnesota that makes Minnesotans deaf, dumb and blind that they would nominate someone this sleazy as Al Franken obviously is to represent them?

Just to throw a twist into this, let me analyze the chances of Republican nominee Bob Kelleher against Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, one of the most senior Democrats in the Senate.

Kelleher surprised everyone in the primary by taking more than one third of the GOP vote in a crowded GOP primary field for the US senate nomination.

The 85-year-old Kelleher has been a perrennial candidate since the 1970s. He usually ran in the Democratic primaries but most lately had run as a Green Party candidate. He probably saw more of a chance in the crowded Republican primary this year rather than another windmill tilt at Baucus in the Democratic primary.

Of course he is not in line with any Republican policy. His main issue is scrapping part of the US Constitution to form a european-style parliamentary democracy. Other side issues he has taken in the past are even too-far left for mainline Democrats, including nationalizing key US industries.

So who will vote for this guy? Well, as hard as it is for us political junkies to ponder, many people, including some Republican voters, don't follow issues at all. They are conditioned by tradition to vote straight ticket for one party or the other on election day. Kelleher gets those votes. Other Republicans who understand the issues well, will vote Kelleher not because they expect him to be elected, but as a way of voting "not-Baucus." Of course there is that tiny fraction of unaffiliated voters who may actually be intrigued by Kelleher's issues. But he may also siphon off some of the far left voters who consider Baucus anethema to their strict "Green" leanings.

Baucus is also a deal-maker who was willing to strike voting agreements with then-in-the-majority Republicans in trade for issues he supports. Many on the left side of the Montana Democrats can't forgive him for that and may also check Kelleher.

Kelleher has no money, will get none from Republican donors, and will not likely bring a serious challenge to Baucus, who is just "Max" to his supporters in Montana. But we are a strange breed of independant voters here. Last election we voted in favor of medical marijuana on the same ballot in which wer banned gay marriage. So don't rule out a surprising coalition of supporters for Kelleher that may give him more votes in the general election than most election watchers think.

Bush and His Republican Congress of bushbots have done more damage to this country than all the terrorist nations combined!
They are finished and the Republican Terrorist are finished!
Good Riddence to Bad Rubish !!!!!
WE WILL HAVE CHANGE, WE WILL HAVE PROSPERITY!
AND WE WILL NOT HAVE NO MORE GREEDY SELF-SERVING REPUBLICAN "YES-MEN" FOR GEORGE W. BUSH !!!!

The un-seen elephant in the room that no poll taker will be able to ID in the general election come November is the Bradley effect when millions of registered Democrats thruout the USA will vote for McCain once in the privacy of the voting booth. To overcome these white, Hispanic and Asian-Americans no-way-that-I'll vote-for-a-black-candidate votes, the Democrats and Barack Obama will need two votes for each one McCain cast vote to just stay even. With Barack Obama already exposed as a racist white and America--hater (having been a member of the racist white and America--hating Trinity church for more than 20 years) it's not likely that he'll get more of these voters dumb enough to support him to overcome his losses. Before Obama was exposed as a Louis Farrakhan-clone and desciple by his pastor Jerimiah Wright Jr.'s racist and hateful sermons, Obama was winning the white working class votes in the early elections. When however Wright's sermons and Obama's relationship with these racists and America--haters became public knowledge, Hillary started to beat Obama in the states by big numbers. Conclusion? Before the Wright sermons hit the airwaves, white voters were supporting him because they thought that he was a straight shooter, a non-militant black who wanted to heal America's racial wounds of the past, and possibly another Rev. Marin Luther King. When they then learned about THE REAL BARACK OBAMA and his past associations with the Louis Farrakhan racist white and America--hating crowd that he supported and smoozed with for 20 years, they became disillusioned and supported Hillary instead. With Hillary now out of it, these voters are not about to change their minds and return to vote for a proven racist white and America--hater like Barak Obama come November in the general.
Bye, bye Barack Obama and good ridance to a racist white and America--hater!

"I also think that's the under-noticed story in the reason why so many Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama."

The experience theme is obviously important to you, but very clearly there is no single reason, or even a predominant reason apparently. Some say they will vote for McCain to punish the mainstream media, as if the country itself were really just a cable television franchise. It's completely looney-toons, some of the reasons that you hear for voting for John McCain, staying home, or writing in Hillary Clinton. Very much of this noise is written purely in the hope of whipping up sentiment for such a response.

We kept hold of Habeas Corpus today by the skin of our teeth and they want to punish the media by appointing another probable three conservative justices to the Supreme Court? You can't fool me. These are the same idiots that helped to reelect Bush in 2004.

"I also think that's the under-noticed story in the reason why so many Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama."

The experience theme is obviously important to you, but I think it's no particular mystery about why some Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Obama:

1) a lot of them are Republicans or "former and future Republicans" to put it nicest, who plan to vote for John McCain and agitate at places like this as much as they can in the meantime; 2) some are ardent feminists who cannot avoid the gestalt that their cause got somehow victimized; 3) some are folks who smashed a kind of romantic "camelot" template down on the Clintons; 4) some distrust any departure from familiar institutions or business as usual; and 5) some are racists, latent or blatant. And of course, any individual could have a foot in more than one of these camps.

In category 3) there is a significant subset that apparently cherishes a cult-like belief that if Hillary were elected president, the economic conditions of the 1990s would return to this country.

Category 4) is big in a lot of democracies, it's why we get "dynasties." But some here aer simply exercising natural caution, very pro-survival. Hell, after the last 8 years nobody should be in trusting mode.

Category 2) seems to scream a lot about the mainstream media, but somehow feels the fix is to screw the country. I don't get it myself. It's as if the country *were* cable television.

Category 5) will never ever come out of the closet - well hardly ever - or may be in denial, but in either case all you ever hear from them is one of the other story lines.

Category 1) ditto, they'll take one of the other story lines, or some combination. These guys are reportedly somewhat organized by a radio talk show host. Sorry if I'm a bit vague on this, I don't myself use push media.

Hillary's camp. For the most part, it's not a pretty sight. What you can say is that anybody who's left in there at this point doesn't believe in at least some one thing that Hillary herself believes in.

"I also think that's the under-noticed story in the reason why so many Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama."

The experience theme is obviously important to you, but I think it's no particular mystery about why some Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Obama:

1) a lot of them are Republicans or "former and future Republicans" to put it nicest, who plan to vote for John McCain and agitate at places like this as much as they can in the meantime; 2) some are ardent feminists who cannot avoid the gestalt that their cause got somehow victimized; 3) some are folks who smashed a kind of romantic "camelot" template down on the Clintons; 4) some distrust any departure from familiar institutions or business as usual; and 5) some are racists, latent or blatant. And of course, any individual could have a foot in more than one of these camps.

In category 3) there is a significant subset that apparently cherishes a cult-like belief that if Hillary were elected president, the economic conditions of the 1990s would return to this country.

Category 4) is big in a lot of democracies, it's why we get "dynasties." But some here aer simply exercising natural caution, very pro-survival. Hell, after the last 8 years nobody should be in trusting mode.

Category 2) seems to scream a lot about the mainstream media, but somehow feels the fix is to screw the country. I don't get it myself. It's as if the country *were* cable television.

Category 5) will never ever come out of the closet - well hardly ever - or may be in denial, but in either case all you ever hear from them is one of the other story lines.

Category 1) ditto, they'll take one of the other story lines, or some combination. These guys are reportedly somewhat organized by a radio talk show host. Sorry if I'm a bit vague on this, I don't myself use push media.

Hillary's camp. For the most part, it's not a pretty sight. What you can say is that anybody who's left in there at this point doesn't believe in at least some one thing that Hillary herself believes in.

"I also think that's the under-noticed story in the reason why so many Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama."

The experience theme is obviously important to you, but I think it's no particular mystery about why some Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Obama:

1) a lot of them are Republicans or "former and future Republicans" to put it nicest, who plan to vote for John McCain and agitate at places like this as much as they can in the meantime; 2) some are ardent feminists who cannot avoid the gestalt that their cause got somehow victimized; 3) some are folks who smashed a kind of romantic "camelot" template down on the Clintons; 4) some distrust any departure from familiar institutions or business as usual; and 5) some are racists, latent or blatant. And of course, any individual could have a foot in more than one of these camps.

In category 3) there is a significant subset that apparently cherishes a cult-like belief that if Hillary were elected president, the economic conditions of the 1990s would return to this country.

Category 4) is big in a lot of democracies, it's why we get "dynasties." But some here aer simply exercising natural caution, very pro-survival. Hell, after the last 8 years nobody should be in trusting mode.

Category 2) seems to scream a lot about the mainstream media, but somehow feels the fix is to screw the country. I don't get it myself. It's as if the country *were* cable television.

Category 5) will never ever come out of the closet - well hardly ever - or may be in denial, but in either case all you ever hear from them is one of the other story lines.

Category 1) ditto, they'll take one of the other story lines, or some combination. These guys are reportedly somewhat organized by a radio talk show host. Sorry if I'm a bit vague on this, I don't myself use push media.

Hillary's camp. For the most part, it's not a pretty sight. What you can say is that anybody who's left in there at this point doesn't believe in at least some one thing that Hillary herself believes in.

"I also think that's the under-noticed story in the reason why so many Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama."

The experience theme is obviously important to you, but I think it's no particular mystery about why some Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Obama:

1) a lot of them are Republicans or "former and future Republicans" to put it nicest, who plan to vote for John McCain and agitate at places like this as much as they can in the meantime; 2) some are ardent feminists who cannot avoid the gestalt that their cause got somehow victimized; 3) some are folks who smashed a kind of romantic "camelot" template down on the Clintons; 4) some distrust any departure from familiar institutions or business as usual; and 5) some are racists, latent or blatant. And of course, any individual could have a foot in more than one of these camps.

In category 3) there is a significant subset that apparently cherishes a cult-like belief that if Hillary were elected president, the economic conditions of the 1990s would return to this country.

Category 4) is big in a lot of democracies, it's why we get "dynasties." But some here aer simply exercising natural caution, very pro-survival. Hell, after the last 8 years nobody should be in trusting mode.

Category 2) seems to scream a lot about the mainstream media, but somehow feels the fix is to screw the country. I don't get it myself. It's as if the country *were* cable television.

Category 5) will never ever come out of the closet - well hardly ever - or may be in denial, but in either case all you ever hear from them is one of the other story lines.

Category 1) ditto, they'll take one of the other story lines, or some combination. These guys are reportedly somewhat organized by a radio talk show host. Sorry if I'm a bit vague on this, I don't myself use push media.

Hillary's camp. For the most part, it's not a pretty sight. What you can say is that anybody who's left in there at this point doesn't believe in at least some one thing that Hillary herself believes in.

"With the Iraq argument resolved in John McCain's favor,"...NOT. Unfortunately, while playing chess with Aya-ama-the-decidah, the nasties (Badr org) slipped into control of the Maliki gov't while the honorable Sadr pretends to back off, acutally 2 Iranian backed factions shadow boxing, a fine operatic performance, full of sound and fury signifying....a diversion. Iran wins either way. Iraq will be partitioned no matter who wins the White House.

The GOP seems like they should be calling 911 and asking for help, but no one is picking up. Maybe it is a lack of leadership.

This cartoon gives a few laughs and emphasizes that you get what you get due to leadership.

http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/2008/06/13/331/

>>fzdybel wrote: "In fact, astonishingly in retrospect, Bush hadn't been that bad a governor. The point is, experience is a vastly overrated commodity. In fact, the electorate has seen this verity and that's exactly why Hillary didn't get the nomination. They agreed she was somewhat more experienced than Obama alright - not as importantly more experienced as having been a governor for example - but they didn't want her kind of experience."

I disagree with you because I think she was making inroads against Obama for precisely that reason. I also think that's the under-noticed story in the reason why so many Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama. I think that the full verdict on the experience won't come in until election day.

Obama did well with change voters, in persuading a higher percentage of voters that change is the biggest issue. And he did well with the change voters, over 60 percent, I think.

The percentage of voters who were experience voters was much lower, but Clinton did very well with experience voters, something like 70 percent, I think.

I don't know what possessed people to vote for Bush in 2000. So I can't remember what overcame public perception of his bumbling on issues and got him elected anyways. I think it was more Gore negatives. He was stiff and remote. And Liebermann as a running mate was a dry and boring buzzkill.

Obama has done a good job of selling his supporters on his being experienced and qualified enough. So it doesn't appear that people who are already his supporters see experience as a big issue, and those that do see him as having enough.

Good night.

More troll droppings. Bush had more executive experience than the lot of them put together: McCain, Obama, and Clinton. Being the guy making the decisions is the best possible training for being the guy making the decisions. The positions of Governor and President are more closely similar to each other than to the positions of Senator or certainly First Lady. You even get to command the National Guard as governor. Being a Senator is a completely different sort of job.

In fact, astonishingly in retrospect, Bush hadn't been that bad a governor. The point is, experience is a vastly overrated commodity. In fact, the electorate has seen this verity and that's exactly why Hillary didn't get the nomination. They agreed she was somewhat more experienced than Obama alright - not as importantly more experienced as having been a governor for example - but they didn't want her kind of experience.

That's why you're a bit droll to be seen here harping on the point of Obama's inexperience. The experience differential argument only hurt Hillary and it's very likely going to do the same for John McCain. McCain's been around the block a few times. Shop worn, he is. Like Hillary, he's picked up lots of bad experience. That Military Commissions Act that the Supremes just kicked over? That had his thumbprints on it.

>> fzdybel wrote: "Bush was sort of the opposite of McCain, an untested, underqualified, inexperienced guy that everyone expected would do well because his father was President"
--You forget that Bush had served as governor of Texas. That is more relevant executive experience than Obama, McCain and Clinton put together.

The only person Bush had more experience than as a candidate is Obama. I'm not going to argue with you about state-versus-national offices, but governor isn't the same stage as national politics.

As a matter of resume, Bush was a better candidate in 2000 than Obama is in 2008, which should tell you something about how poorly Obama's resume measures up to anyone else's as an historical matter. Abraham Lincoln, who didn't even have any formal schooling, had more professional stature as a lawyer than Obama achieved with his ivy league law degree.

Bush as a candidate in 2000 doesn't beat either McCain or Clinton in terms of qualifications for office. He had no national politics or national stage experience in politics and his resume wasn't strong as a governor or before being governor. And Clinton does have executive experience, in fact. She was partner in her law firm, which is a kind of executive position in the law field.

In 2000, Bush was considered to be under-qualified and less than impressive in his grasp of issues. A lot of people thought he'd be an incompetent president and making fun of his mispronunciations started during the campaign, not after he was president. Obama has fewer qualifications than Bush did. The biggest strike against Bush wasn't his lack of on-point national political experience, per se, but lack of professional success as a businessman. Like Bush, Obama has no professional success as a lawyer. He didn't make partner at his law firm out of school and he was a part-time occasional lecturer at a local law school. He accomplished nothing with his ivy league law degree before going into politics.

"Bush was sort of the opposite of McCain, an untested, underqualified, inexperienced guy that everyone expected would do well because his father was President"

Troll droppings. You forget that Bush had served as governor of Texas. That is more relevant executive experience than Obama, McCain and Clinton put together.

Barack Obama is too stupid and under-qualified to win this Fall. Obama's not unelectable because he's black but because he's black and unqualified and extremist. Channeling Jimmy Carter is the best he can do after campaigning for two years. The outcome in the Fall will be a big pickup of Congressional seats for Dems, and a Republican in the White House.

>>Mighty Crows wrote: "AsperGirl who is paying you? You have no credibility. Your posting was empty."

Most economists agree with me that Obama's tax policies are dead wrong for this recession year and furthermore that his social security tax "doughnut" policy is ill-conceived.

I don't care what you think of my credibility and postings. You're fanatical Obama bots who are so obsessed with your racial preference candidate you can't even discuss his policies and agendas in a rational way, just as you can't see that he's incompetent and unqualified for the job. The only thing you understand, or are capable of appreciating, is his blackness.

The fact that you Obama bots attack me personally is because you cannot argue with any of my points.

The reason why the Washington Post isn't publishing article after article about why Obama's economic policy declarations of the past couple of weeks are so brilliant is because they are stupid and economists are panning them. Just as his "no preconditions" idea of schmoozing with an Iran that he said was not really a threat, was so stupid he ended up totally backpedalling off every aspect of that idea.

When the Washington Post gives no analyst treatment to an Obama policy statement, that's a sure bet its some form of blatant idiocy and they can't get anyone to talk favorably about it. Obama's growing list of creative, soak-the-rich taxation ideas is dead wrong for a recession year. He's channeling Jimmy Carter and would tip the country into a years-long, painful stagflation.

You talk about "credibility". I don't aim for credibility with Obama bots. The only things you understand is what is acceptable material for dailykos and Obama talking points. You're in a cult culture and anything inconsistent with The Dream is not in your reality. To have credibility with you is to be in your cult.

I wasn't even posting to you, so you don't have to respond to me.

AsperGirl who is paying you? You have no credibility. Your posting was empty. You are wasting your time. Nobody believes you. The time it takes to respond to you is gone forever. On my death bed I will be thinking why did I waste some of my precious existence on reading AsperGirl? And why did I waste more of my life responding to AsperGirl's inane basura?

I still go back to Lincoln Chafee being defeated in 2006 midterm. I think things look worse than the aftermath of Watergate because after all there has been real accountability afforded to the American public. Republican Party leaders urged Bush to dump some of his liabilities prior to last midterm elections but he was stubborn as usual. I don't expect things to change by November 2006.

I think Franken has got an easy ride being that he is a Liberal celebrity. In fact, an article on pornography is probably a plus for him if kiddie porn or pedophilia is not included. And speaking of which, just one more minor republican scandal would assure that the Senate does not retain closure power. That is ashame but I am prepared to accept a pendulum swing to the far left for at least 4 years.

Stevens is just a thorn in everyone's side now. He is the earmarker that introduced a bridge to nowhere. He failed to get ANWAR drilled and somewhat isolated himself through that process. His ties to the oil industry are known but he has been known to be real buddy, buddy with Cheney too. It all comes down to the balance sheet in Alaska's voters in my mind. Alaska is a very, very poor state.

I think there are a few other races worth noting Chris as I stated earlier, contempt for the Whitehouse has been known to trickle down taking out good legislators in the process.

Will anyone care about Bush forty years from now ? I think someone should give Bush a suburu car as a present to satsify his ego. That way he can tell everyone he has gotten a Legacy ;)

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

Obama is stupid and lazy.

I think Smith will retain Oregon. His ads are very clean and progressive. You know what? I also don't think he will obstruct smart legislation either.

With that said, I won't vote for him. I want to gather the republican brand and spread it on my fields where it can for once do some good as fetilizer.

I know what a true republican is, and I haven't seen one for years now. The party has been usurped by hateful, stupid people.

Americans are taking back America.

"How can people go against their real beliefs and vote for a conservative (or centrist when it suits him to say so) like McCain? These people who won't back Obama because they "just don't like him" need to rethink their real values, perhaps do some soul searching and consider what sort of political ideology they really support."

We already 8 years of Bush. Bush was sort of the opposite of McCain, an untested, underqualified, inexperienced guy that everyone expected would do well because his father was President. People just assumed he would do okay despite the lack of qualifications and inexperience. They thought that being President meant that there'd be plenty of advisors and mentors. But in answer to the question, How bad could he be? We found out that the answer is really, really bad.

After Bush, a lot of people don't want to roll the dice on inexperienced unknowns right now. They want someone proven, established, and experienced who are known and character-tested.

The people who vote will vote more or less as a reaction to their opinions as to what went wrong with the Bush Administration. People who think having an underqualified clueless guy in office is the bigger evil will vote for McCain and people who think that having a guy with the wrong ideology in office will vote for Obama.

A lot of people will vote for either McCain or Obama depending on who they think will be best going forward after 8 years of Bush. There are a lot of reasons why people would honestly think that means not voting for Obama, given how badly the last under-qualified candidate, Bush, did in the past 8 years.

Kris from AL, McCain loves America as much as any politician does. He has all those ghosts in his cabinet as any other politician does. Don't forget he was against Taxes and then for it not because he had a dream, only because that was the thing to do to win support for himself. He was part of Keating 5, very much in the middle of Savings and Loan crisis. He has no clue what he has to say and when. AND ABOVE ALL, HE HAS NO CLUE HOW MOST AMERICANS ARE HURTING AND HOW A PRESIDENT CAN REALLY HELP. SELLING DREAMS DOS NOT MAKE THEM COME TRUE. PRESIDENT NEEDS TO KNOW DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REALITY AND DREAM. The current occupant of White House was a Compassionate Conservative in 2000. In white House he never was Compassionate and has been miles away from Conservative strategies.

How can people go against their real beliefs and vote for a conservative (or centrist when it suits him to say so) like McCain? These people who won't back Obama because they "just don't like him" need to rethink their real values, perhaps do some soul searching and consider what sort of political ideology they really support. So many people who post on here claim to be Democrats but say they won't vote for Barack Obama, the Senator from Illinois who has one of the most liberal voting records. This is disturbing, I hope the majority of my fellow Democrats are not as fickle and controlled by emotions as many of the self proclaimed Democrats on this site. Democrats must win back the White House in November, there are three wars to conclude, a rising deficit, a health crisis, increasing unemployment, and of course wounded veterans to care for and educate! We must UNITE Democrats, let's not ruin our chances to fight back against the far Right and win (the Right wing will support McCain even if elements of the Left do not support Senator Obama.)

In a profession that would try to put a positive spin on the sinking of the Titanic then the Republicans saying that a good night for them would be a loss of only three senate seats then they must be bracing for a blow-out not unlike 2006. You know this must be true since when the Repulicans are in a losing stance their talking heads get louder and louder. Last night on MSNBC Pat Buchannon was screaming so loud he was causing objects near the TV to rattle! The equivalent on the Post Comments is either writing in ALL CAPS or posting the same stupid saying over and over again! And the stench of Republican desperation is heavy in the air today! Ha Ha!

"Obama has never been a muslim. This myth has been thoroughly debunked. Nice try, but you're not fooling anyone here."

That's not true. Obama was registered as a Muslim in Catholic school in Indonesia, where he took Muslim classes because he was registered as a Muslim. His book even admits he took "Koranic studies". He can deny that he was Muslim as a child, but most people would look at just those facts and say that he was a Muslim if his parents registered him in school as one.

Furthermore, he was a Muslim simply because the child assumes the religion of the father in his religion. It's kind of like getting baptized as a Catholic baby -- it's not up to the baby. According to Muslims, Obama is a Muslim just because his father was.

That "fight the smears" website is full of cleverly worded, narrowly worded statements.

And that birth certificate is a strange one, too. It's not even certified and it appeared out of nowhere on a blog without any accounting trail.

I like wasteful spending, the ability to snatch defeat out of victory in war, and tax giveaways to Paris Hilton and her rich buds. I'm voting Republican this fall!!!

I agree with the poster who said Massachusetts will remain democratic but it will Not (NOT) be John Kerry as senator.

Bye John

>>Average Joe wrote: "Asper Girl, Are you still lying that you are a democrat? Haven't you been discredited in the tax column. Obama's tax scheme when understood will fetch votes."

Aren't you the guy who said he makes less than $40K so you think Obama's tax plans are so great?

Look, Obama's already backpedaled on the first of his tax proposals.

I'm not going to explain it to you, I'll just tell you.

During a recession, you don't raise taxes. For the same reason why a "stimulus package" helps avoid or improve a recession, increasing taxes helps worsen or prolong a recession.

The economic picture is complicated, but the short version of the story is that this is not one of those recessions/slowdowns where (1) consumer spending is not a problem and (2) where it will be over shortly.

Maybe you think that taxation people who have more money than you is the answer to improving your life. But it's not. Your buddy Obama is channeling jimmy Carter's 1970's style stagflation-creation ideas, just like he's been channeling Jimmy Carter's impotent, naive ideas about Iran. Jimmy Carter got us into the Iran mess (literally, he caused it) and Obama would get us into another by imitating him. Obama's taxation plans during an economic slowdown and inflationary period are not helpful.

There are a lot of things that need to be done to improve the economy. Obama's not talking about them. Clinton was. That was only one of the reasons why he lacks the substance she has.

Obama caught some flak for the taxation ideas he came out with last week, and he's just pulled over Clinton's top economic advisor, which is wise because he keeps fumbling. Maybe his economic policies will improve after this week.

The choice is simple. President Obama would be the first person elected who chose to associate himself with Black Liberation activists and he made that decision as an adult.

President McCain is a person who has proved himself a true American hero under the WORST circumstances.

President McCain no doubt loves America.

President Obama, how do we really know?

Matheny, I'd rather provide Repiglicans with plenty of Zyklon-B tablets...

Obama has never been a muslim. This myth has been thoroughly debunked. Nice try, but you're not fooling anyone here.

Senator Obama visited me in the hospital last year after my brain surgery. He made me proud to be white.

I could never vote for Obama because ha has renounced his Muslim faith. This should offend fellow Muslims everywhere.

Lets not be heartless and mean. After November we should provide Conservative Republicans with plenty of free Zoloft tablets.

Asper Girl,
Are you still lying that you are a democrat?
Haven't you been discredited in the tax column.
Obama's tax scheme when understood will fetch votes. Do you make > 250K or make > 400 million in capital gains.

I DO NOT.
Posted by: AsperGirl | June 13, 2008 5:58 PM

Massachusetts will remain Democratic but it won't be John Kerry!

I have been a Republican for 40 years. When I registered, the Republican Party was the choice for an aspiring middle class. Today, it is the party of billionaire robber barons and a christian extremist fringe. I want my party back, but to get it we need to get rid of nearly all of the party leadership now in place. We already tried the gilded age; concentrating wealth in the hands of a few didn't work out very well. In the last 2 elections I voted straight Anti-Republican. The Dems could put up Bozo the Clown and I would vote for him. It would be a step up from what we've got today. The Republican Party needs to reclaim itself. Our representatives in Washington today are more focused on greed and ideology than they are on competent government.

"[33% will vote Republican no matter what] So they need to get anathor 18 % by false propogandist on religion, abortion, homosexuality etc."

No, Obama's crazy tax talk is doing that.

Oh Come on! Al Franken will make C-Span's Ratings go up!

Just like the Nazis were inevitably defeated by the shifting social and political pendulum, so too have the republicans.

Let us just hope that when the Republicans do finally rebuild they do so with more moderate and level headed individuals like McCain and Richard Lugar.

Red, red Oklahoma elected a unknown Democrat for Governer the last 2 times, originally over a good looking, famous, football hero, Republican, congressman. Lightning could strike again in our Senate race. R-Jim Inholfe the neanderthal of the Senate, financed by his big oil pimps, is running ads about how a big jerk can be good for Oklahoma! We Dems (there are some here) have a young unknown named Rice whom we are hoping will open our boarders to the outside world.

Great list!

NEWS FLASH

NBC ANNOUNCES WORDS OF WISDOM AND 37th&OSTREET WILL CO-HOST MEET THE PRESS

Obama camp in disarray

Axelrod said to be "livid" complains NBC is turning on him, says that he is personally hurt by decision.

Plouffe says NBC decision is "like a stab in the back from a close friend."

Michigan and Florida Voters Cheer Decision - Celebrations in the Streets of Lansing and Miami.

.

IRON CLAD RULE : NO MATTER how RUINOUS, CRIMINAL and CALLOUS BUSH and Republican leadership supporting him may be -- 33% of Americans will VOTE for them.

So they need to get anathor 18 % by false propogandist on religion, abortion, homosexuality etc.

It works most of time.

"Why a McCain Win May Be Bad for GOP, Good for Democrats"
By Stuart Rothenberg

Good article on realclearpolitics.com above.

The Republicans are going to have to tear each other apart to progress from where it is now. There are so many hardened, entrenched ideologues who exist in a bubble of rhetoric and principles from the last century. Their refusal to budge from their obdurate stands is only matched by their readiness to snipe at and pressure McCain on account of his "liberal" (centrist) views.

Instead of following McCain's leadership on platform and agendas, they are ignoring him, when they aren't trying to force him to toe old Bush party lines.

It's going to take a watershed humiliation in Congress and elsewhere for the Republicans to become aware of how their insular removal from mainstream reality has made them politically bankrupt.

I'm in Oklahoma, the 2nd redest state in the union. We like to say "Were numrer one," and we are in sending to Washington the worst congressional deligation in the Nation. Jim Inhofe, the global warming denier may be a dark horse to get beat this year!

And the neocon controlled press is still saying that McCain is virtually tied with Obama!! They resolutely ignore the
IRONCLAD RULE OF POLITICS:
No president or his party's nominee has ever been elected if an economic downturn BEGINS and continues on his watch. PERIOD!

The biggest deficiency with our political system is the amount of time it takes to democratically remove a ruinous, unpopular political head of state.

In parliamentary democracies like UK, India, Japan etc - the Primeminister resigns as soon as his party loses majority in Parliament - like the Republicans lost in Congress in 2006.

In our case - even the most unpopular, runinous head of state can continue his full term.

The GOP knows it can't win elections legitimately -- so it will resort to the usual fear-and-smear tactics ...
Please people -- turn and vote this year, so Bush lackeys like Norm Coleman don't come back and cause more misery for another 6 years!

Franken may not win in Minnesota, but in New Mexico, the Dems will most likely pick up a seat, with Tom Udall winning against the mediocre, mindless Bush hack Steve Pearce.
In general, the GOP knows it absolutely nothing to run on, and will resort to its usual fear-and-smear tactics. How pathetic.
Turn out and vote people, so scum like Norm Coleman don't get their jobs back!

Franken may not win in Minnesota, but in New Mexico, the Dems will most likely pick up a seat, with Tom Udall winning against the mediocre, mindless Bush hack Steve Pearce.
In general, the GOP knows it absolutely nothing to run on, and will resort to its usual fear-and-smear tactics. How pathetic.
Turn out and vote people, so scum like Norm Coleman don't get their jobs back!

How do you know that MCCain may be an even bigger CON-MAN than BUSH ? When he went before Isreili/Jewish audiences - he repeatedly started equating Sunni extrimists with Iran ! Its that kind of dishonest, deceitful propoganda that got us into a ruinous war while the real Islamic Jihadis - continue their safety in Pakistan.

I can't believe that Maine missed the top ten! Susan Collins and Olympia Snow are both HIGHLY vulnerable. Although they claim to represent Maine's independent spirit, their voting record shows them hewing far too close to the Republican line. Increased voter registration for the Dems adds to voter dissatisfaction with GOP policy. Maine may be the whitest state in the nation, but it is an Obama state, and that will surely help. Just wait and see, Maine will add at least one seat to the Democratic majority in the Senate!

The Republican smear machine is already in high gear. Just look at how the Republicans have lined up behind the most CALLOUS, DECEITFUL, INEPT AND RUINOUS president in US history.
Are these guys Americans or card carrying members of some party first ?
I wonder.

Damn the republicans. Let's wipe the floor with them in November.

"I wonder if people are pleading with McCain to not pick a Senator for his running mate... just to help keep their numbers up should McCain actually pull off a win."

He can't pick a senator. And he may pick a woman.

I wonder if people are pleading with McCain to not pick a Senator for his running mate... just to help keep their numbers up should McCain actually pull off a win.

Which he won't.

Which means it doesn't matter.

Which means.... never mind.

My thoughts are prayers to the Russert Family. This is a horrible shock.

mnteng: a jerk radiologist in my neighborhood in the State Senate has said he is not running for re-election and yes the same Chris Bell said he may run for that very impt State Senate seat here but its not official yet though I have been emailing im. Chris is very well respected in this Senate District and would stand a great chance in winning that seat.

Leichtman:

LOL -- best to your wife!

Yes, it was the Stevens' seat that I was referring to, not to mention Justice Guinsberg -- I have real fears for her health -- she looked awful the last time I saw her.

For me, the Court is about so much more than Roe, it is Miranda, and a slew of other civil rights cases that are (I fear) in jeopardy if those two seats are filled by clones of Justices Roberts/ Scalia/ or Alito (brilliant men, but not the kind I want on the Court). Yesterday's decision (and especially those dissents!) highlighted the importance of having a Democrat nominating the next Justice.

By the way, I agree on Biden!

Oh My Gosh Tim Russert is gone. What a national treasure, what a sad loss.

more trouble for the GOP:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/13/poll.republicans/index.html

Leichtman:

Yesterday's Boumediene decision was a 5-4 vote, compared with Rasul in 2004, allowing statutory habeas for Gitmo detainees, which was a 6-3 decision. The difference -- Alito replacing O'Connor (OK, and Roberts replaced Rehnquist too, but that isn't very much of a change). With the brazenly political rhetoric coming from Scalia, it is a very legitimate issue who will take the place of Stevens (aged 88) on the Court.

McCain on abortion (from ontheissues.org):
"Q: In 1999, you said, "In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations."

A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn."

On abortion, the John McCain of 2008 is very clearly not the John McCain of 2000.

BTW, is the Chris Bell you're supporting the same guy that ran against Perry last time?

The Republicans are totally unfocused and they are regressing.

I'm getting emails from people who are conservatives on forums and they're totally off message and talking at cross-purposes. There is no unity, organization or focus on McCain.

Just last week when McCain was talking about energy and nuclear programs, the conservatives on the private forum I'm on were emailing ANWAR ANWAR ANWAR themed messages all over the place. Not only did they seem totally clueless about how repulsive and unpopular that message is (it makes Oil Co. Insiders look like they're opportunistically using the energy prices to hijack some protected oil reserves for marginal benefit to anyone else) but it was clear they were ignoring McCain's themes and not picking up his leadership and message and helping him get it across.

It's like they're all devolved into their little ideological bubbles, talking at each other with their partisan lingo, unaware of how out of touch, dated and unattractive their tired, exhausted and discredited sound bites sound. They don't seem to realize the only ones listening to them are each other.

By ignoring McCain's messages and going off on their own tired partisan rhetoric they totally undermine McCain's attempts to refocus and adjust the party's platform.

The Republicans appear to be inert, regressed and clueless. They're not staying on message with McCain or even really paying attention to his speech content and attempt to provide rhetorical and platform leadership.

At this point, they're not even in complacency, they're in denial and refusing to update and reformulate their platform for this century, and they are disdaining McCain's "liberalized" themes.

What's worse is that they sound even less credible than Obama, who every day is reading off a laundry list of some new draconian tax he'll impose in what appears to be a massive asset allocation he's planning via the IRS.

The only time the Republicans interrupt their narcissistic, deluded recitation of tired rhetoric at each other is to nag McCain to drop some enlightened view and start toeing the old discredited themes, as happened between yesterday and today with his stand on the recent Supreme Court Habeas Corpus ruling.

The Republicans are alternately (1) boxing McCain in the old rhetorical and ideological, discredited positions each time he tries to push out of it, and (2) ignoring his new agenda and platform talk and they keep clinging to their unattractive recitations of partisan-keyed rhetoric that no one wants to hear anymore.

Obviously, 2006 wasn't enough of a wake-up call. I recall their since 2006 about how they lost so many seats because they abandoned their fiscal discipline and etc. While that is true to some extent, there are a lot of issues on which they incurred more disapproval. I thought they were being disingenuous when they blocked out and denied the reasons for their losses in 2006. Now I guess they were in denial and still are.

As a Democrat who's been working in politics for many years - it's still so alarming that Senator McCain doesn't see the crisis of the economy and the crisis of Iraq. He just keeps following Bush's logic of "We're doing good" and "Mission accomplished." Does McCain not realize the economic inequality and recession we're entering? Doesn't he see the problems our troops are having? Did you all read the www.Time.com article about the amount of drugs are Troops are taking to deal with the pressure and depression over there?

Read it yourself and you can see that McCain's "Mission Accomplished" is a lie:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811858,00.html

Please vote for the Democrats this fall. Our country and the world can't live through another cycle with Bush's cronies!

Democrats got a little too comfy practically owning Congress in the post-Second-Great-War period. Eventually, their act grew stale. The only alternative was the Party of Tradition, the Party of the Wealthy, the Party of the Well-Connected. Republicans entered to throw a monkey wrench into government. They cut taxes on party members. They ginned up a phony war. They signed huge non-competitive, non-overseen government contracts with crony corporations. They ran up huge bills. They wrecked the economy. They halted regulation. They enabled criminal activity. The committed criminal acts. They promised social conservatives action on God-guns-gays trifecta issues and delivered nothing. The only people who are immensely satisfied with the Bush/Cheney performance are those who continue to live inside the bubble at the White House. The unbiased opinion is resoundingly more negative. From 2008, it is hard to understand why so many people voted to elect Bush for the first time in 2004. He was appointed in 2000. The gift that keeps on giving is the 9/11 attacks. Republicans have milked that for everything it is worth: war, unitary president, ripping up the Magna Carta and the Constitution. Those who want more of those things can vote for McCain. The rest of us have made our choice. When you think of Bush, think of those soldiers who have been electrocuted in their showers back at the Iraq military base because Our Government is not capable of ensuring construction that our tax dollars pay for is compliant with modern building codes. That is the way Bush supports our troops.

Marie: You and my wife are giving me a hard time about filling the Stevens seat if that is what you are referring to. I presume your reference was to their decision allowing Guantanamo detainees rights to trial. Since it was allowed by this conservative court don't understand your point. Will wait to see if Biden or HC are chosen VP and whether we will hear an Obama explanation to Chris Wallace that he supports comprehensive tort reform, a non starter from a D candidate for me and most of my lawyer friends here locally who were ticked off by that O interview on Fox.

Read a column by Froma Harrop this morning quoting McCain to the S.F. Chronicle saying he has no intent of supporting overturning Roe v Wade and thinks that would be bad public policy, but who knows about that since Reagan appointed O'Conner and Bush David Souter. These are her comments, so call me Undecided at this point Marie I care more about Noreiga, Franken and Chris Bell right now:

"Hillary Clinton's blessing notwithstanding, many of the New York senator's supporters will resist the handover to Barack Obama. The sexism that permeated the recent campaign still rankles, and John McCain is far from the standard-issue Republican they instinctively vote against.

A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain's position on reproductive rights. Clinton's backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they'll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The answer is unclear but probably "no." While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue."

In other (but more MN) news, the star tribune reports today that, should Ventura run, polling data shows he'd get 25% of the vote (were it held today). With 5% undecided, that poll says Coleman would win - with 39% of the vote (Franken gets 32). Personally, I'd be surprised if Venture got that much of the vote - but given the competition, perhaps I shouldn't be...