If there are any Clinton supporters here,..." Posted by: Ashamed of Hillary | June 7, 2008 1:53 AM
====================
If there are any Clinton supporters here, they are very ashamed of the DNC's selection of Barack.

"Only a fool". Really Senator. Does 'Bomb Bomb Iran' fit into that group? What a fake and fraud the 'straight talk express' truly is.

It's interesting to note how many of these anti-Obama posts are so ashamed of the garbage they are offering that they cannot even bring themselves to leave a name.

If there are any Clinton supporters here, perhaps they would like to take a look at some more McCain ads to learn why she will NOT be on the Democratic ticket. Any questions? She made her bed and now we must leave her to rest in it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121278857397353091.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

If Obama wanted to mence fences with Hillary he SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE HE USED RACE IN A CAMPAIGN THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE POST-RACIAL.

He should have thought about that before he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Bill Clinton in South Carolina.

Obama was never offended.

He should have thought about what would happen down the road BEFORE he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Gerry Ferraro.

What a pathetic man Obama is.

NOW Obama wants the country to vote for him because he has better "judgement" than McCain.

What kind of "judgement" did Obama show in South Carolina??

What kind of judgement did he show when Obama voted to fund the war???

What kind of judgement did Obama show bringing his children to Rev. Wright's church week after week, year after year???

WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show making a real estate deal with Resko after he was elected to the US Senate?

WHAT kind of judgement did he show making friends and hanging out with William Ayers, a terrorist who bombed the Capitol Building and the Pentagon ? (younger people do not know about that)

WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show when he actually thought that NO ONE would point any of this out ???

.

Why is McCain's left side hidden? Is that to hide his stroke?
Can the Post tell us about McCain's suicide attempts? his violent outbursts and whether these helped end his first marriage? about whether he has been having affairs on his other wife? How about the ugly and vicious "jokes" he has made over the years -- "you little jerk" to a teen as an example? When will we get the true McCain?

McCain should contrast Obama throughout the commercial in an expanded version ... show Obama refusing to put his hand over his heart to our national anthem on a stage of politician with hands over hearts... show Obama refusing to wear a flag pin and then wearing one after being called on it... show the Big O getting busted when his mid-east advisor was having secret meetings with Hamas... then show Obama's church magazine that touts pro- Hamas writings... then a flash of Farrakhan preaching to a huge audience, basically calling Obama the messiah (and he would not be referring to the Christian or Jewish messiah)... then zoom in on Michelle Obama's angry face saying she has never been proud of our country before... then add some footage of William Ayers bombing the pentagon and the photo of Ayers stomping on our flag - and Obama launching his political campaign at Ayer's house and giving speeches with him... show the footage of the Palestinians phonebanking for Obama in the US... Then snippets of Hamas, Castro, Norweiga and the black panthers endorsing Obama - and for the finale Reverend Wright's famous line, "God damn America."

Chris:

AT this point, the Washington Post really should hold Obama personally responsible for these kind of attacks on other posters - there is reason to believe that this is a group very close to Michele Obama - Many many people have complained - today the Obama people have shown their true colors

***************************************

This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM

Chris:

AT this point, the Washington Post really should hold Obama personally responsible for these kind of attacks on other posters - there is reason to believe that this is a group very close to Michele Obama - Many many people have complained - today the Obama people have shown their true colors

***************************************

This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM

DON'T BE SURPRISED IF HILLARY'S "ENDORSEMENT" OF OBAMA COMES OFF AS BEGRUDGING, REPLETE WITH POLITICAL DOUBLE-SPEAK, OBFUSCATION AND BARELY DISGUISED EQUIVOCATION.

THE REASON: SHE STILL BELIEVES THAT OBAMA CAN'T WIN AND RISKS BEING NEUTRALIZED BY FORCES DETERMINED TO KEEP AN INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL ELITIST FROM WINNING THE WHITE HOUSE.
.
The reports of an abrupt, awkward tete-a-tete last night between Hillary and Obama do not auger well for party unity. But what the star-struck mainstream media refuse to understand is that more than political ambition may be involved in the equation.

As stated here before, Bill and Hillary have been there. Hillary reaffirmed her belief in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in her biography, "Living History." Both Clintons know well the damage that can be done. They believe they have been among the victims of a vicious campaign aimed at preventing any significant alteration of the "new world order" that began in ernest under Richard Nixon and was later advanced under Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush.

It's a fair bet that Hillary has tried to get through to Obama on this very point, but that he either refuses to listen to her, or thinks her entreaties stem from political ambition and not a sincere desire to spare the society from another national political defeat/trauma.

The Clintons do believe that Obama will either be co-opted or destroyed. They do sincerely believe that the only way to avoid this ultimate defeat is for them to continue to subvert Obama's candidacy and to prevent his nomination at the convention. Their unstated hope is that the Obama candidacy will wither under the intense scrutiny of the general election campaign -- fueled by new revelations that cast aspersions on Obama's choice of associates, and on intemperate remarks by a certain key family member.

Of course, she can't and won't say this. She will feign support of Obama while working behind the scenes at a last-ditch attempt to prevent him from gaining sufficient votes to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention. The first stage of her continuing coup attempt involves holding onto her delegates, ostensibly so that all women of the world can hold their heads high as her name is placed in nomination on the first ballot.

This is totally disingenuous. Hillary's candidacy already has proven the possibility of a woman competing for the nation's top job. What more need she prove?

That's where the second stage of Hillary's coup kicks in. Unbeknownst to Obama and the party rank and file, Billary will have worked the backwaters, seeking to convince a hundred or more superdelegates to abstain from voting on the first ballot. The motive: to prevent either Obama or Hillary from securing the nomination the first time around.

After the first ballot, a rumor spreads like wildfire across the convention floor: The indeterminate first ballot vote was a reaction to adverse reports yet to publicly surface about Obama, his associates and his family members.

In the midst of the convention session, the "real story" behind the first ballot vote breaks on the internet. The panic among the delegates spreads; Obama protests "internet lies and gossip" but the delegates believe the damage has been done; this time, they buy the premise that Obama has become unelectable, if not radioactive.

At that point, the third and most audacious stage of the Hillary coup comes to pass: Hillary calls an impromptu press conference, stating that in response to the renewed doubts surrounding the presumptive nominee, Hillary is advising her delegates that she is withdrawing her endorsement of Obama and will decline to release her delegates on subsequent ballots.

But at that juncture, a fourth stage erupts. Delegates activate the "Draft Gore" option that they've kept in their back pocket the whole time, since well before Obama supposedly "clinched" the nomination. On the second ballot, Al Gore's name is placed into nomination by former supporters of Hillary Clinton. The vote is taken; and once again, no one candidate secures the votes required to secure the nomination.

It is at this stage that Obama, realizing that his historic but meteoric candidacy has come to an end, instructs his delegates to vote for Al Gore on the third ballot. They do, and the nomination goes to Al Gore.

The next morning, Gore convenes a press conference with Obama at his side. Gore announces somberly that Obama has turned down Gore's offer of the vice presidential slot, out of recognition that his political capital has been severely diminished. Obama then takes the podium to give his unequivocal endorsement of Al Gore, and he elaborates on his decision to turn down the vice presidential offer.

Gore goes on to take the White House, with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as his veepee. Hillary returns to New York, where she will lose her party's nomination for her Senate seat to a protege of Rep. Charlie Rangel.

She is later named a Supreme Court justice designate by President Gore.

THE ABOVE SCENARIO DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT WHAT WILL HAPPEN... BUT IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF HILLARY REFUSES TO RELEASE HER DELEGATES PRIOR TO THE CONVENTION.

DON'T BE SURPRISED IF HILLARY'S "ENDORSEMENT" OF OBAMA COMES OFF AS BEGRUDGING, REPLETE WITH POLITICAL DOUBLE-SPEAK, OBFUSCATION AND BARELY DISGUISED EQUIVOCATION.

THE REASON: SHE STILL BELIEVES THAT OBAMA CAN'T WIN AND RISKS BEING NEUTRALIZED BY FORCES DETERMINED TO KEEP AN INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL ELITIST FROM WINNING THE WHITE HOUSE.
.
The reports of an abrupt, awkward tete-a-tete last night between Hillary and Obama do not auger well for party unity. But what the star-struck mainstream media refuse to understand is that more than political ambition may be involved in the equation.

As stated here before, Bill and Hillary have been there. Hillary reaffirmed her belief in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in her biography, "Living History." Both Clintons know well the damage that can be done. They believe they have been among the victims of a vicious campaign aimed at preventing any significant alteration of the "new world order" that began in ernest under Richard Nixon and was later advanced under Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush.

It's a fair bet that Hillary has tried to get through to Obama on this very point, but that he either refuses to listen to her, or thinks her entreaties stem from political ambition and not a sincere desire to spare the society from another national political defeat/trauma.

The Clintons do believe that Obama will either be co-opted or destroyed. They do sincerely believe that the only way to avoid this ultimate defeat is for them to continue to subvert Obama's candidacy and to prevent his nomination at the convention. Their unstated hope is that the Obama candidacy will wither under the intense scrutiny of the general election campaign -- fueled by new revelations that cast aspersions on Obama's choice of associates, and on intemperate remarks by a certain key family member.

Of course, she can't and won't say this. She will feign support of Obama while working behind the scenes at a last-ditch attempt to prevent him from gaining sufficient votes to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention. The first stage of her continuing coup attempt involves holding onto her delegates, ostensibly so that all women of the world can hold their heads high as her name is placed in nomination on the first ballot.

This is totally disingenuous. Hillary's candidacy already has proven the possibility of a woman competing for the nation's top job. What more need she prove?

That's where the second stage of Hillary's coup kicks in. Unbeknownst to Obama and the party rank and file, Billary will have worked the backwaters, seeking to convince a hundred or more superdelegates to abstain from voting on the first ballot. The motive: to prevent either Obama or Hillary from securing the nomination the first time around.

After the first ballot, a rumor spreads like wildfire across the convention floor: The indeterminate first ballot vote was a reaction to adverse reports yet to publicly surface about Obama, his associates and his family members.

In the midst of the convention session, the "real story" behind the first ballot vote breaks on the internet. The panic among the delegates spreads; Obama protests "internet lies and gossip" but the delegates believe the damage has been done; this time, they buy the premise that Obama has become unelectable, if not radioactive.

At that point, the third and most audacious stage of the Hillary coup comes to pass: Hillary calls an impromptu press conference, stating that in response to the renewed doubts surrounding the presumptive nominee, Hillary is advising her delegates that she is withdrawing her endorsement of Obama and will decline to release her delegates on subsequent ballots.

But at that juncture, a fourth stage erupts. Delegates activate the "Draft Gore" option that they've kept in their back pocket the whole time, since well before Obama supposedly "clinched" the nomination. On the second ballot, Al Gore's name is placed into nomination by former supporters of Hillary Clinton. The vote is taken; and once again, no one candidate secures the votes required to secure the nomination.

It is at this stage that Obama, realizing that his historic but meteoric candidacy has come to an end, instructs his delegates to vote for Al Gore on the third ballot. They do, and the nomination goes to Al Gore.

The next morning, Gore convenes a press conference with Obama at his side. Gore announces somberly that Obama has turned down Gore's offer of the vice presidential slot, out of recognition that his political capital has been severely diminished. Obama then takes the podium to give his unequivocal endorsement of Al Gore, and he elaborates on his decision to turn down the vice presidential offer.

Gore goes on to take the White House, with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as his veepee. Hillary returns to New York, where she will lose her party's nomination for her Senate seat to a protege of Rep. Charlie Rangel.

She is later named a Supreme Court justice designate by President Gore.

THE ABOVE SCENARIO DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT WHAT WILL HAPPEN... BUT IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF HILLARY REFUSES TO RELEASE HER DELEGATES PRIOR TO THE CONVENTION.

If Obama wanted to mence fences with Hillary he SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE HE PULLED HIS RACE BAITING IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

He should have thought about that before he made false charges of offensive remarks against Bill Clinton.

Obama was never offended. He should have thought about that BEFORE he made false charges of "offensive remarks" against Gerry Ferraro.

What a pathetic man Obama is.

NOW Obama wants the country to vote for him because he has better "judgement" than McCain. What kind of "judgement" did Obama show in South Carolina?? What kind of judgement did he show when Obama voted to fund the war??? What kind of judgement did Obama show bringing his children to Rev. Wright's church week after week, year after year. WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show making a real estate deal with Resko after he was elected to the US Senate? WHAT kind of judgement did he show making friends and hanging out with William Ayers, a terrorist who bombed the Capitol Building and the Pentagon ? (younger people do not know about that) WHAT kind of judgement did Obama show when he actually thought that NO ONE would point any of this out ???

.

Chris:

I am disgusted with the Obama posters on this board - they are completely out of control and they drag down the entire converation - I do not blame anyone for returning the attacks. The Obama people have take a course which can only be described as uncivlized. And Chris - that is what we are fighting for this year - to preserve civilzation from radicals who have no idea what they are talking about and latte liberals who have no idea what they are agreeing to support.

AT this point, the Washington Post really should hold Obama personally responsible for these kind of attacks on other posters - there is reason to believe that this is a group very close to Michele Obama - Many many people have complained - today the Obama people have shown their true colors

***************************************

This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 8:37 PM

Chris:

AT this point, the Washington Post really should hold Obama personally responsible for these kind of attacks on other posters - there is reason to believe that this is a group very close to Michele Obama - Many many people have complained - today the Obama people have shown their true colors

***************************************

This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 8:37 PM

Chris:

AT this point, the Washington Post really should hold Obama personally responsible for these kind of attacks on other posters - there is reason to believe that this is a group very close to Michele Obama - Many many people have complained - today the Obama people have shown their true colors

***************************************

This is just to respond to several personal, ad-hominem attacks below:

******

"Wow, Asper Girl, hate black people much? Those "blacks who don't know what a latte is" in Mississippi and Philly are my relatives, and they are smart, informed, and thought carefully about whom to vote for..."
Posted by: shouldn't be surprised | June 6, 2008 4:54 PM

You know, I won't even go into all the jibes at Clinton supporters, including all the articles of the Washington Post profiling every state that Clinton won as how racist its blue collar people are -- I'm talking feature articles about how racist [Pennsylvanians, Ohioans, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Hispanics] (insert state here) are. Like the blacks in Mississippi are all employed at Ole Miss in the Liberal Arts department and sip lattes. No one has written any articles profiling how racist the black voters are who vote for Obama.

According to the media and Obama trolls, Clinton voters didn't get Obama because, if they weren't "bitter", they were ignorant, "low information" poor whites. So how much of a higher percentage of the Mississippi blacks understand Obama's rhetoric, semiotic campaign than Ohio blue collar whites? How much of a higher education level do South Carolina blacks voting for Obama have than blue collar whites voting for Clinton in Pennsylvania?

>>"Asper Girl" is an uptight racist and reflects the typical, mindless perspectives of U.S. society.
>>Posted by: | June 6, 2008 5:50 PM

I've been subjected to your black racist, mindless perspectives for months now. I'm like Geraldine Ferraro, sick of all the hypocrisy and reverse racism.

In part, I reject your candidate because of all the racism and sexism arising through his campaign. Obama's campaign is a self-evident refutation of his vague and specious campaign promises of being a "transcendent" and "post-racial" candidate.

>>"Hey guys.. just want to let you know, I swallow!"
>>Posted by: AperGirl | June 6, 2008 6:35 PM

And that would be bad because....?

I suppose you bolt your food and gulp it in your gullet like the big male primate that you are.

Please don't post sexual and other slurs under my name.

Posted by: AsperGirl | June 6, 2008 7:56 PM

Posted by: | June 6, 2008 8:37 PM

No. McCain, if you truly hate war, you do not march lockstep with the current commander in chief during the build up to the current illegal occupation of Iraq. You don't authorize the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the loss of life and limb to our own civilians.
Dennis Kucinich hates war and he proves that again and again, not just when it is politically expedient to say so.

I don't think trying to sell something to the American people that 73% already are against is a very good strategy. He say a few things that most anyone would agree with

+++++++
ArlingtonVoter, I think I agree. McC will have to vigorously defend his position on Iraq, and the result may be, as he has glumly forecast, that he may lose the election on that position.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | June 6, 2008 5:45 PM

When you seek old John McCain ............................................................ .
As your numbing Novocaine ............................................................
You may be finally going off track ............................................................
By closing your minds to Barack ............................................................
Who is the real cure for your pain! ............................................................

..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................

Keep spewing the venom Hillary / McB supporters ... let it out ... let it all out. God Bless.

ArlingtonVoter, I think I agree. McC will have to vigorously defend his position on Iraq, and the result may be, as he has glumly forecast, that he may lose the election on that position.

Some idiot keeps addressing comments to "LOUD and DUMB." Must be an inside joke among third graders these days.

MiA - Good comments as always, but isn't that the point? He will likely never be successful in disassociating himself from his robust support of GWB's war. This ad seems to say, "I take war seriously" but it leaves unanswered the "and...". If this is to be filled in later (I think you may be more adept than the ad's authors), it still doesn't deal with his undeniable association with his continued vocal support all these years. I think this is a tough row to hoe. But as I said before it does take measure of his concern.

Optimyst, the ad may not work as intended, BUT:

it is clever in one respect; perhaps two.

1] It is about the past and the future but not the living present. It completely and neatly excises the GWB years from the narrative, like a surgically removed cancer.

2] It attempts to allay fear that a man closely linked to his own and his family's naval history would see war in a mythic romantic light.
--------------------------
I give it credit for being a positive evocation. But for reasons you and others suggest, it may not sway any votes. As a background, it lays out a theme that can be expanded later - if he can continue to skip those troublesome GWB years.

I'm not that loud.

For 2007, the National Journal ranked him the Senate's No. 1 liberal with a score of 95.5 percent. This put Obama to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent-Socialist - Vermont) who rated a marginally more conservative 93.7.

The National Taxpayer's Union calculates that Obama's policy prescriptions would balloon annual federal spending by $343.6 billion. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain would boost yearly outlays by a more modest $68.5 billion. Obama recently embraced Congress's atrocious $307 billion farm bailout. McCain condemned it.

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund expertly dissects Obamanomics. Among the many warning signs:

Obama endorses a 45 percent minimum-wage increase, from $6.55 to $9.50. Why not simply triple it, to $19.65? Employers would love that.

Obama wants a "market oversight commission" to monitor and reduce risks to the finance industry. The FDIC, Federal Reserve, SEC, and Treasury already attempt this, whether or not they should.

While Obama favors modest middle-class tax cuts, he promises widespread tax hikes. For top filers, taxes on capital gains would rise from 15 to 28 percent, dividends from 15 to 39.6 percent, and personal incomes from 35 to 39.6 percent. Meanwhile, the Death Tax would zoom in 2011 from 0 to 55 percent. "And if you live in a high income-tax state like New York, New Jersey, or California," Fund adds, "your highest marginal tax rate could go to as high as 60 percent."

Obama would let President Bush's tax cuts lapse. The Heritage Foundation estimates that this would cost taxpayers $113 billion in 2011 and $133 billion in 2012 alone.

Barack Obama's agenda is statist and disappointingly unimaginative. It lacks the Democratic Leadership Council's "Third Way" thinking or even the dreadful-albeit-interesting quality of such ideas as comparable worth or cumulative voting. Obama's program of tax, spend, and regulate is as innovative as a station wagon.

In contrast, John McCain advocates aggressive tax reduction, an optional flat tax, a free market in individually owned health insurance, and an escape from the Bush era's fiscal incontinence. As voters increasingly recognize, putting age before beauty is America's best hope for change.

Senator Barack Obama finally captured the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday. For this, he deserves two cheers from Americans from coast to coast.

First, Obama secured this country's chief domestic priority for 2008: denying Senator Hillary Clinton the presidency. Obama has earned the eternal gratitude of millions of relieved Americans who understand how calamitous a Hillary Clinton administration would have been. She combines ruthless ambition, a pathological sense of entitlement, and the ethical restraint of Richard Nixon's "White House plumbers" unit.

LOUD and DUMB, did you donate your brain to Kennedy? I heard he had one installed last week and it is clear you are without one. Or is that just a coincidence?

Frankstein wanted to serve blood but Cinderela refused, prefering Water. Black Hunter said it's fine!

It's just very scary. Lots of folks will just see Bush when he talks about keeping America "safe." It's a rationale for nuking Iran.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

If you want to read a funny account about Black Hunter meeting with Cinderela in the Frankstein's house in Washington, go to Wonkette.com

I found this ad odd. First, the music was too somber, and the sole point, other than confirming his well-known military background, was to say, "I hate war." No mention of Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran. No policy prescriptions, no contrast to his opponent who likely hates war, too. So, reading between the scant copy, the ad apparently attempts to say, I hate war, so you can trust my foreign policy even though I'm going to keep troops in Iraq for 4 more years, and I'm ready to pounce on Iran. But not to worry, I hate war.

I fail to see how this shakes the mantle of his oft repeated support for the war. It does show that he is seriously concerned about it though. Money not well spent, in my opinion.

I also agree with bonjedi and maxfll in that, with due respect for his service, I don't see how this gives him any special expertise. He voted for the war initially, has supported it at every opportunity and embraced the escalation.

Interesting tack.

Everyone knows McCain is the strong candidate for security. Hopefully he will chose a VP that will be strong on economics and they will be a great pair. Everyone who thinks the economy is bad now should consider what it would be like if Iran gets nukes and/or we have another 9/11. Obama will NOT protect our country and without that security the economy will never get better.

It has already begun

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-06-06-corps.jpg

War talk yaa what is good for.
OIL PRICES AND IRAN MAKE MEGA BUCKs

OIL TO $137 on WAR TALK
why do THE JEWS AND McCain want to make IRAN SO RICK

The McSame campaign is going to crash and burn.

Wait until someone at a town hall asks the doddering old codger what it was like to see Wendell Willkie in the flesh.

This guy doesn't get it. About only 25% of the public cares about the war anymore, they have given up on it, they care about the economy and $5.00 to $8.00 gas that is coming. If he keeps this his direction and message he will lose for sure. Who the hell are his advisors? 73% of the public want out of Iraq and he thinks like Cheney who when he was told that said, "So"?
Is that what Mccain would say, "So"? His campaign is going to be a disaster, a total train wreck.
See this and think Mccain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh8E0QPGARw

With oil up $11.00 a barrel today alone, By November they won't be able to get elected no matter what they do. You will be paying $6.50 a gallon when you drive to the polls in November. Or walk maybe by then. No we don't need any change, lets all vote for Mccain, yea, right.

One thing to remember about Georgia is Bob Barr. While he is running as a third party candidate (or would that be 4th party since the Green Party already nominated Ralph Nader?), Barr is very popular among the far right, especially in his home state of Georgia.

While I wouldn't expect Obama to get more than 50%, I do think that with Bob Barr runnning, the ultra-conservaitve Repubs and Libertarians who might nornally support the Repub candidate in the absence of a strong candidate of their own may give Bob Barr a strong showing in that state and thereby allow Obama to win the state with 35%-40% of the vote. Remember, it is the winner of the most votes that gets all of the electoral votes, not the person who wins a majority of the votes.

GA could turn blue and send a LOT of electoral votes to Obama. I think Bob Barr could have the same effect in NC and Virginia, and to a lesser extent in WV and KY.

PG

Wow. If I was a voter who had not tuned into the campaign before, I think I would be surprised by this dark-toned, melancholy ad about death as the introduction to the contest.

It seems to be playing 100 percent defense (against the "this is Bush's third term" idea) and not putting forward anything positive about the candidate -- in the sense of positive leadership for the future, I mean. Of course it does highlight Senator McCain's distinguished military record, which is and should be a big plus for him, but that does not tell me anything about the future.

I would call this the "it's evening in America" ad.

>>> [McCain] has to -- at least -- neutralize the war in Iraq as an issue against him.

Truer even than it seems. But it suggests a question: Is there any way to "neutralize" the war issue?

The answer is easy: No. Not as long as the war continues.

There is no way on this Earth that a mere candidate could recast an entire war to suit his means. That is what McCain would have to do, because he cannot change who he is or where he stands.

So if he will not go to the mountain, then the mountain must come to him. And it's not going to. Ever.

Additionally, the character of the war is determined by what HAPPENS IN IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. McCain has no control of those events at all.

McCain's Iraq position is, to use tired military metaphors, like the British at Gallopoli, or the Germans in Normandy -- they lost those battles long before they were waged.

McCain is betting that conditions in Iraq will "improve" from the perspective of the American voter. He is betting that he can disconnect himself from Bush's support for the entire adventure.

The only president elected as a supporter for an unpopular war was Richard Nixon. Nixon, like McCain, had a secret plan to end the war -- enlarge it.

But McCain is no Nixon.

Everything is in place for a major disaster. It only appears that McCain has a chance. But as soon as the pieces start moving, the inevitable will become clear.

With all due respect to his POW record, McCain was on the sidelines for most of the Vietnam war. I still don't see how that experience translates into expertise on Iraq.

That's apparent when you see the missteps he has made in the last few years expressing his views on Iraq and the Middle East: the 100 year war, declaring Baghdad completely safe while hoping no one noticed the company of Marines surrounding him or flying overhead, expressing befuddlement over who al Qaeda is and their connection over Iran, etc.

One word best describes McCain's add - disappointing. I am also a Navy Vietnam combat veteran (Corpsman with the 1st Marine Division). I spent my year over there on the ground in the villages and hamlets treating long lines of civilians for infections of all kinds, jungle ulcers, malaria and a host of other third world maladies. At night I was out on the infiltration trails with Marine ambush teams standing radio watch with an M-16 in my lap just like everyone else. As a veteran I hold McCain in no higher regard then I hold the lowest ranking enlisted man who served with me, or anyone else who served in Vietnam for that matter. He has no special insight into the Vietnam War or any other war. Anyone who has experienced such things firsthand would wonder how politicans could allow anything so awful to happen in the first place. The fact that he still avidly supports this idiotic, illegal war in Iraq is proof that his judgement is flawed at best and his experience is useless. In 1995 Jim Webb, a Marine combat veteran, made an interesting and profound observation when he was interviewed for Parade Magazine. He said [paraphrasing] "As citizens, we have a special responsibility to ensure our young people are properly trained, equipped, led, and welcomed home when we send them off to fight for us." Now that's the stuff that real leaders with good judgement should be saying and doing right now. Jim Webb has kept the faith and he gets it. McCain, sadly, does not.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FOR THE BEGINNER [NOVICE] THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITIES,

FOR THE EXPERT, THERE ARE FEW.
-----------------------------------

I am very happy to see that Obama will be the Democratic candidate. It truly is a historic moment.

BUT ARE THERE AREAS AND THINGS HE WILL NOT CHANGE ???

TO THE EXPERT, WASHINGTON JUST DOESN'T ROLL OVER ++++ REGARDLESS ++++ OF WHO THE PRESIDENT IS. BELIEVING IT WILL CHANGE ++++ DRASTICALLY ++++ IS NAIVE.

MCCAIN HAS BEEN IN WASHINGTON A VERY LONG TIME ++++ AND KNOWS BETTER, WHEREAS OBAMA MAY MEAN WHAT HE SAYS, BUT HE NEEDS BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS TO SUPPORT THAT CHANGE AND THEN TO PAY FOR THAT CHANGE.

YES MCCAIN NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE ECONOMY ++++ OBVIOUSLY ++++ BUT THE ABOVE MESSAGE IS RIGHT ON TARGET TO START WITH.

GOOD JOB, MCCAIN !!!

Chris, the political map has changed. This is a new era in politics.

I watched a report recently showing that people who have moved to a state they were not born in are the change in demographics. Those people typically do not vote predictably based on old maps. It's a purple world now.

Chris, I am pleased that you are starting to report on the General election and the issues.
Please keep on the issues both candidates represent. Issues will decide the election, not character debates...

I'd love for Barr and black voter turnout to make Georgia competitive, but isn't Virginia, with Webb, Warner and Kaine, a much more likely turnover?

OK, everyone can agree McCain has lots of experience but does he use it to do the right thing? Everyone, especially McCain, knew the Bushies were bamboozling everyone about the invasion of Iraq and yet our senior candidate bought it hook line and sinker. He just came out with a "I support Bush on wiretapping" statement. Doesn't his "experience" tell him that constitutional rights are too important to throw away for short term political gains? We don't need the kind of 'experience' that the republicans have given us over the last several years. We need real change.

"Aside from the ad's contents, the states in which the ad is running provide the first real insight into where McCain believes the general election campaign will be won or lost."

That is a reasonable point. I wonder though, whether talking about the war is a winning issue - in general & in those states specifically. While the war has been a primary consideration in the elections of 2002, 2004 & 2006, is that as significant an issue this year? In the face of a stagnant economy it may be easy for the Obama campaign to portray McCain as out-of-touch with the concerns of average Americans. He needs to establish an economic policy & promote it.

I live in WI and received an automated survey that seemed to be from McCain. Q: Who will you vote for? A: Obama. Have you heard a lot about McCain?...McCain?....McCain?

The two questions about electoral strategy are 1) Can McCain afford to compete on Obama's map because Obama will enlarge the map and 2) How does he attract independents without further alienating base Republicans?

If Obama has to overcome race in Appalachia, how does McCain attract independents AND Republicans? The Rovian philosophy was that by appealing to independents you gained fewer voters than you turned off. Appeal to independents and too many far right voters either stay home or vote third party. Then you alienate independent voters from the whole process by either making the campaign nasty or raising too many supposed character flaws in the Democrat. Suppress independents, drive the base, and win by a narrow margin. The Rovian strategy.

McCain faces a base that doesn't really like him and seems resigned to their fate. McCain has to win Republican votes and independent votes. His latest about face on warrantless wiretapping has just sent part of the base to Bob Barr. Is Montana turning blue or is that just a cold front? How is McCain's opposition to the generous GI bill playing around the VA military bases? Obama has a base that is so tired of the Republicans that after they put Clinton's loss behind them they'll vote for anything with a D after it and Obama actually appeals to independents in a year when the independents are anti-Republican and not likely to stay home.

McCain's best strategy may be to legally change his name to: D (D)

No, two words: seriously deceptive. This may be the ultimate example of the manipulative message.

Does anybody remember "compassionate conservative?" When will we look past the pious generalities and measure candidates by what they actually support or oppose?