I'm listening to (delayed) Barak Obama give his speech today announcing his candidacy for president. All I can say is:

Oh my god! This guy is going to be tough to beat.

He's got several things going for him: for one, he's obviously the first serious non-white candidate who can reach across racial lines, yet will bring out a large non-white vote in any election. For another, he doesn't SOUND like a politician. He certainly sounds well educated, yet he speaks directly and forthrightly. Contrast this to Hillary, who sounds a little too much like a politician. Obama doesn't sound like one.

Obama looks so new and refreshing, the future not the past. John McCain looks like an old man, not the future. Even Hillary reminds everyone of the 1990s, looking back.

America has been led by stiff-sounding white men for too long. This guy sounds different. I don't know if he'll stumble, but he looks like a pretty awesome candidate.

Andrew

Obama has absoilty no chance, most blacks dont want him for president.

Most blacks dont even consider him black, and they consider him a foreigner.

"most blacks dont want him for president.

Most blacks dont even consider him black"

...the fuck? you can't post shit like that and not actually provide a link or some semblance of backup. Because, and pardon me for saying this, I seriously doubt you have enough of a standing in the black community to KNOW enough black people to extrapolate that sort of idea. In fact, I'm having a problem with the concept of you knowing anything about "most blacks" that you didn't learn from a standup routine, much less actually SPEAKING for "most blacks."

And it's spelled absolutely. not absoilty. Jesus.

Nwokie, you're obviously listening to too much right-wing spin. I'm listening to C-Span right now with callers calling in with comments, and a whole number of callers who sound African American are enthusiastically for him.

Everyone knows Hillary. But most Americans, I venture to say, still haven't heard Obama speak. That's when we'll find out for sure how people feel about him.

Andrew

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070202-093525-5107r/

actually no, there was at least 2 major news articles about it last week.

and besides, he isnt black.

If the election came down to Obama and Hillary (which obviously it wouldn't) I'd vote for him over Hillary any day.

Mostly because I can't stand Hillary.

I saw the speech on C-SPAN this afternoon and I was very impressed. It looked like he gave it from memory or off the cuff. There was one very unkind Republican caller, but there were some very complimentary.

Here are some takes on the speech:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9896.html

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/10/quick_though ts_on_obamas_speech

What's most likely to hurt Mr. Obama is not his race.

Sadly, it will be the Clinton destruction machine. Remember the 'nuts & sluts' campaign organized against anyone who dared speak out about the Clintons?

Once they get their people researching dirt on Mr. Obama, I'm afraid he's toast. And I would vote for him waaaay before I'd EVER vote for Mrs. Clinton. In fact, I can't think of a scarier candidate than her.

Herb

Wow, a speculative article from a news source WRITING about the New York Times, convieniently not allowing for the paragraph at the end that states LEADERS in the black community find the idea to be silly. And when I dug up an NPR airing and a Washington Post/ABC-News poll that said 60 percent of black voters nationwide would vote Clinton over Obama, those articles also cited the fact that those black voters don't even really know who the fuck Barack Obama IS. meaning most voters are of the mind that color of skin isn't the major bearing on how they choose to vote, since all they apparently KNOW about Barack Obama is that he's black. I'm betting once they get a shot to listen to the guy, that number will shift.

And since when do you get to redefine the color of skin? You wanna tell me how a man who's father is from KENYA isn't BLACK? I'm guessing "Barack Obama" is a name you find most Wasps giving to their children. Maybe it's presbyterian in nature.

"Once they get their people researching dirt on Mr. Obama, I'm afraid he's toast."

What dirt is there that the guy hasn't already aired? Hell, you've got news channels spending airtime on the fact he SMOKES and he doesn't wear a tie. That's about as damaging as it's been so far.

No, the Clinton Campaign isn't looking to undercut the guy beyond "He's a rookie" because that's all they have. If they're smart (and the Clinton Campaign is pretty weasel-smart, as all good campaigns in this climate are) they'll look to SUBSUME his candidacy. A Clinton/Obama ticket will be nigh unbeatable, and Hillary's got to recognize that at this point.

He's looking like a rock star at this point. I'm seriously liking what I see and hear.

Andrew, you are right about him not sounding like a politician, nor old. Both are gonna be seen by a lot of people, maybe a majority of people, as good things!

Nwokie, are you serious? High?

That's hardly a top news story. It's right in line with a number of cheap ass blurbs aimed at smearing him. It's always a clue when you don't even have an author tagged to the Bash and Dash™.

Andrew is right, he could stumble, but it's all good for him right now. The only crap so far is essentially a bunch of manufactured crap --that little blurb being a part of it.

The Clinton's have already marginalized the poor guy. Make them fight clean and Mr. Obama has a chance.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA4NjNmMjNmZGNhMTExOTA4MTkxMTI3Njk2ZTlhNjc =

Herb

"Obama has absoilty no chance, most blacks dont want him for president."

LOL - ok

Question #1. Would you vote for him? ( And for extra credit, cite the platform stance of his with which you most agree ).

Question #2. Who's going to be our next President? I mean, you were pretty quick out of the chute there and stated your opinion as fact. You must already know, eh?

" Poor guy."? LOL. Good one. Do you respond to that kind of lead-by-the-underhanded way to state things? I don't.

Go try and fool others with that less than subtle version of a whisper campaign. Nobody feels bad for him. Try another angle.

Obama and Edwards are my faves right now.

If he's the right guy, I seriously want him to win because it would finally mean we've gotten past some really basic issues as a nation.

Herb, we've got a very aggressive blogsphere and grassroots this time around. They are gonna check the noise machines in general. This last election was clear evidence of that, which has plenty of establishment members more than a little upset on both sides of the asile.

It's hard to marginalize somebody who a lot of people have not met. IMHO, this could really backfire on Hilary. She's already as known as she can get. Frankly, I'm not sure the majority vote is there. Too many dirty tricks and it won't be there for sure.

And the upside is?

Lookie at all those fine Dem candidates! Wow! What a solid pack overall. Once we have thinned the crowd a little, picked them over, the party will have solid offerings. Gotta love it when we are worried about which very solid candidate might be the front runner!

Who's the big front-runner for the Republicans again?

C-Span showed Jesse Jackson asked recently (in front of an audience) about Obama and the "black" issue, which Jackson dismissed as trivial. He then said (I paraphrase), "Many of us here originally came from a black mother and a white father" which got a rise out of the largely black audience. I think he pretty much put this issue to rest.

Andrew

Exactly!!

McCain? Newt? Rice? (Oh, god just look at those teeth!)

They might have Nader!

Andrew: Good! Good grief, just look at him. How much more do people need?

Maybe we can get some of those really solid AD producers working for him. I heard a very interesting segment from Thom on this topic. IMHO, it makes a difference.

Newt will run again if he " has " to. Great. Just what I want; A reluctant President.

And Rice? I don't know tons of black people. But I get the sense that black or white, she's not exactly being drafted for the position.

McCain's got legs...maybe...shit, I don't know yet. I wish I was as smart as NWOkie though.

"Poor guy."?

Yes, poor guy. You obviously haven't paid attention to those who have suffered from the Clinton's attack dogs.

You have no idea what Mr. Obama is up against with the Clinton's. No idea whatsoever. The money, the shockingly dirty manoevres, the lies. If you think he's going to skate through this, think again.

Yes, poor guy. I may disagree with him on a few key issues, but I wish him well, at least into the general election.

Our country absolutely cannot handle another Clinton in the White House. That's why I hope he can withstand the onslaught he's about to face.

Herb

Yep, Mccain does have legs. He's also carrying a lotta baggage too. Should be no biggie to make him look weak --he let W hammer him, kissed up, has changed his tune more than a few times, and now is rapidly owning Iraq... messy.

Obama should stand up nicely by comparison.

"Yes, poor guy. You obviously haven't paid attention to those who have suffered from the Clinton's attack dogs."

OH OH - I misunderstood. I thought you were on one hand claiming that marginalizing is bad ( but I've seen you do it to an art form ) but on the other hand agreeing with why he has been marginalized.

Every time I hear a Clinton trying this same bullshit ( like bringing up - ever so subtly - a " concern " over Obama's schooling and how it may possibly relate to him, you know, being a terrorist and possibly infiltrating our government ) I think back to Bill saying " You know why the Republicans use negative type of campaigning? Because it works. And until the American people stand up and say that they've had enough and can see through it, it will continue." I agred with him but I was under no illusions that he thought he had some kind of high moral ground to take. Give me a break. I mean, yes, I liked how he handled the Presidency. I did. Sue me. And what he said was true. But to assign it to Republicans solely was, well, transparent. Which is what he wanted from an American, right? He wanted me to see it. I did.

Now we get that same bullshit from Hilary's campagin and we're expected to just drink it? Uh, no.

I think the American people have gotten much more sensative to that kind of tactic. But not enough to not make it worth a try in the early stages and see what sticks, eh?

Assholes. All of them sometimes.

So Herb, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your motive for using the " poor guy." But given your history of marginalizing someone whom you would not like to see in office, and the actula topic of your post, I hope you can see that my mistake, while 100% wrong, is understandable.

"Our country absolutely cannot handle another Clinton in the White House."

WTF?!?

Like it can handle the remainder of Bush by comparison?

I asked a simple question here, every week for at least a year: "What are we getting from this President, and the GOP in general, that is worth all the crap?" I got nothing solid then and nothing has changed now, unless you've got some news that changes everything!

Didn't think so.

That's the 20 percent in you talking Herb. Most of us don't see things your way. (And that's a damn good thing.)

If you posed the question, "Did the nation run better under Clinton or Bush?" Clinton would win in a landslide. The majority of Americans could give two shits about what should be a matter to settle between him and Hilary.

Had he not made that mistake in personal judgement, the GOP would have nothing solid, compared to the growing pile of likely criminal behavior the GOP has brought us.

I think Hilary has some electability problems, but being a Clinton is not one of them for all but the few and the brave 20 percenters among us.

Bottom line is this: Obama is an extremely solid candidate, as are all the Democratic front runners. It's all looking really great right now, and that's great news for the country in general.

The GOP is offering who, that might stand a chance against Obama, assuming we can actually set the race issue aside this election?

And I hope we can. It would send a strong message to the world that we, the American people, are actually capable of picking good leaders on their merits. We are afterall supposed to be a shining example of this kind of thing, right?

Chickenjuggler, you do realize that the "Clinton questions Obama's schooling" story was manufactured by right wingers, don't you?

Andrew

No. I did not. I feel kind of foolish for not looking into it further.

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

And boy was he right.

Guess I'd better dig into Herb's cite too now.

Good old Obama, a guy who has never had a real job, never been even a low level manager position, never had to make a payroll, never been in the military,(note wonder if he even registered for the draft?).
but he has some pluses, card carrying member od the Daley machine, hes a lawyer.

I really like Barak Obama for many of the reasons you folks have already cited. I agree that he is the best candidate either party could ever dream about. He is strong willed, smart as hell and yet, he can reach everyone. Ever since I saw his speech at the Democratic convention, I've felt he was special. This latest address just confirms my feelings. I agree with those who say that race is not an issue and experience is not a factor. When you are discussing this Senator, he simply transcends all of it. He is that strong a figure.

Of course, I felt the same way about the late great, Ann Richards. Her party squandered a fine leader, a solid candidate and a history making opportunity. To add insult to that injury, they were so cocky and confident that they gave Texas to the shrub. Perhaps, they will not be so short sighted again.

I also like John Edwards and think that he would make a fine running mate. I think that as a Veep, his stance on poverty, his candid honesty and his ability to reach across divisions could be what saves our domestic bacon, sooner rather than later.

I hate to leave Missus Clinton out of the discussion, but I think it would be fatal for the Democratic Party to nominate her for any part of this ticket. To me, this is not an issue of gender, this is an issue of what is best for the country. Obama, Edwards or another great candidate, Bill Richardson, are stronger bets and better leaders. Nominating Hillary over any of them would be akin to the Republicans nominating the shrub over John McCain in 2000. She might win, but like the shrub, the inevitable damage control would hardly be worth it.

I believe that unless something drastic comes to light, the Democrats should concentrate on Obama, and after the primaries, get behind him, and go to the convention with it all buttoned up. This is how the GOP wins and the Democratic Party could probably learn a few things from them about appearing united, even when they are not.

Great thread Andrew2. Reading this has been cringing in parts, but the discussion has confirmed a lot of what I suspected about the Senator from Illinois. He is much more than merely a viable Presidential nominee. He actually could be President, and potentially a great one. Damn, I really just plain like this guy.

"Our country absolutely cannot handle another Clinton in the White House. That's why I hope he can withstand the onslaught he's about to face."

Geez, another four or eight years of Bill Clinton would be a hell of a lot better than the direction that we're headed in right now!

That said, I give Hillary a HELL no. I think Littlesongs hit the nail right on the head - we need someone who thinks outside the box, and can and will unite. Hillary is neither.

Obama impresses me greatly with his demeanor and his spunk. While John Edwards also shoots from the hip and has mass appeal, he's a little left for my liking in a lot of areas ... though I would certainly vote for him before someone like a Rice or Gingrich. I would **LOVE** it if Bill Richardson got some serious play here, I think he would make a fantastic President, but I don't foresee that happening.

Nwokie writes:
Good old Obama, a guy who has never had a real job, never been even a low level manager position, never had to make a payroll, never been in the military,(note wonder if he even registered for the draft?).

Let's see - we already have a president who evaded the draft, who got ahead due to his daddy's name and connections not by his merit. (Bush took a couple of companies to bankruptcy - obviously he never learned how to make a payroll!) Yet we never heard you complain that Bush wasn't qualified to be president. Now why might that be?

I think Bush has shown that even a horribly qualified person can BE president. Some people (like Abraham Lincoln) can come to office with almost no experience and turn out to be great president; others like Bush turn out to be disasters. A lot apparently depends on the character and ability of the person.

Andrew

For me, it's about vision, character (will the rest of the world get along with the President), and smarts.

A smart President will know when to get help making decisions and can sort through the BS. One with character will rise to the challenge and represent us well. One with vision will break the bi-partisan box and bring us new things we will come to appreciate.

Obama appears to have these core qualities. I'm not too worried about experience level. In fact, that's one of my biggest Hilary worries. She is established and probably got there on more than one quid pro pro. That debt will inhibit her ability to do the right thing.

Actually, the one guy Republicans should be most afraid of is Bill Richardson.

Aside from what is assuredly a 'pro-choice' view, he's relatively moderate, would have the hispanic vote and appears presidential.

You guys would see some conservative defections with him.

Herb

Defections to where?

You are absolutely right, Herb.

Some of my Republican friends have already said that they would vote for Richardson over anyone they have seen so far from the GOP.

I remember back in 2000 that a few of my Democratic friends said they would have voted for John McCain instead of Al Gore.

Funny thing about that middle ground, eh?

Watch the speech here:

http://capitolconnection.sitestream.com/obamaforamerica/livewebcast.htm

This is why the Internet is a great thing for politics. It's easy now to review what these guys say and do.

And the links to great GOP speeches are where?

Edit: Littlesongs caught me! Where are the great speeches from the GOP hopefuls then! Sheesh.

http://www.archive.org/details/dde_1961_0117
Oh, Missing, you asked for more than one? Hmmm...

(thanks for finding the Obama speech)

Edit: Missing, I might run across Amelia Earhart if I have to search that hard!

Bill Richardson is having serious troubles in his state over, of all things, the issue of COCKFIGHTING. I think the guy is okay, myself, but it would be real easy to spin his career as "if you can't get a handle on dudes in a circle betting money on chickens with knives taped to their legs, how can you handle a presidency?"

"Guess I'd better dig into Herb's cite too now."

Oh, the National Review? Yeah, that article was a fun read. Herb PRESENTED it in a manner that you'd think was sympathetic to Barack Obama. Until you read it, and it's more partisan posturing that spends the entirety of it's article shitting hard on BOTH of them.

I will agree with Littlesongs that while I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be nigh unbeatable, I'd rather prefer an Obama/Edwards ticket.

Edwards will NOT be the VP nominee again. It buys him nothing to try for VP again. Same with Hillary. Neither Hillary nor John Edwards will be a VP nominee in 2008. Bill Richardson or Barak Obama - maybe...

I haven't really picked a favorite yet in the Democratic bunch of candidates. I could support most of them if they got the nomination. I'm more looking at the races from the standpoint of a politics junkie than a partisan at this point.

Andrew

One more little side note. The very best part about Barak Obama is that he is a candidate with the tools, fire and desire to win. If the Democrats are serious about winning, they need to fight for him now and keep fighting all the way. Because he is great nominee, could be a great President and not for any other reason.

We all remember 1984. Geraldine Ferraro was a token candidate on a losing team so that the Democrats could pat themselves on the back for doing the right thing. See? Look. We made history. We lost, but look, a footnote. Hooray for ladies.

Jackie Robinson was one of the best in the game. Branch Rickey wanted a winner for his Dodgers and he sure as hell got one. If it weren't for the hype, most radio centered baseball fans would have thought he was a white superstar. All of baseball is grateful to this day that he wasn't brought in by the Washington Senators as a curiosity.

Doing the right thing only matters if you set the table for a person to have success. After winning five pennants with Jackie, in 1955, the Dodgers won it all, as an integrated team. Now, every diamond at every level of pro ball has a 42 on the outfield fence. Winning with class and dignity is the only way to make a lasting change.

I hope that the Democrats go to the ballpark expecting their team to win it all and work toward that goal every day. If they are not serious about winning, they should let this man write his own legacy without them. Even at this stage of his career, he deserves far more than a footnote when he is willing to work so hard for his constituents, and potentially, the country.

(a few edits for flow and additional thoughts)

So, has anyone not chimed in or does anyone have additional thoughts? I really like this thread because it has been, misinformation issues included, kinda reflective of the nation. As FBR pointed out, America is just getting to know him. What are your first impressions?

"...Rice? (Oh, god just look at those teeth!)"

Your comment is both vicious and ad hominem. Don't cry next time someone attacks one of YOUR candidates based on their appearance.

That one mocks another's physical features also reveals that you're absolutely devoid of relevant information. And who are you to judge the appearance someone was born with....Adonis? Right.

Utterly vile.

Herb

Yeah. Why dislike her for what she looks like when there are far more relevant reasons to not want her in office?

Appearances do matter at this level though. Not to everyone. I personally see a big problem in her eyes. You know what I mean?

So sue me.

I've already given solid reasons why she is unelectable. Those stand no matter what I said about her teeth. (and they are scary fricking teeth!)

Chicken: Totally!

By the way Herb, I didn't say I disliked her for her appearance, just that said appearence is not optimal. (There are gonna be those who vote on this stuff)

Edit: If Condi was of otherwise good character, your retort would actually matter, but she isn't. The reality is that the whole package needs to look good. So, if we've got a totally solid person, that might have a blemish, it might get overlooked. But if we have a not so solid person, the blemish is just right there with the rest of it.

Unelectable.

Plus, I mean come on. I collect Queen music. A gay dude who died of AIDS with an epic overbite who wears silk capes and strokes his microphone pole with vigor. I'm ok with what I use to determine if I like someone.

Somebody get Rice a Beadazzler, then maybe we can talk.

CJ. You rock.

Keep in mind Mister Rove, if they nominate the Oil Hussy, you had better hope your check to Diebold doesn't bounce.

"That one mocks another's physical features also reveals that you're absolutely devoid of relevant information."

Or you could just sign your posts with "Herb." It'll get the same general message across.

*Plonk!*

Meanwhile, I would suggest Rice not do any snorkeling in Oregon until we get this Meth problem under control.

Just watched the 60 minutes interview with Obama. (earlier time zone). Impressive. Forthright and honest. Regardless of your politcal lean, he comes across as a breath of fresh air. This guy may have a legitimate shot.

Nwokie said>>>>
Obama has absoilty no chance, most blacks dont want him for president.

Most blacks dont even consider him black, and they consider him a foreigner.

Ignorance is truley bliss on the REICH!

I have heard from several people I know that they consider him a white version of a black man and those people are black themselves.

Now having said that I hope he cleans the table with Hillary. Last thing this country needs is the wicked witch of the east running the country.

Unlike the imbecile in office now??? Now, I'm NO Hilary fan here but DUHbya is by far the biggest idiot in the last 75 years!

Bill Clinton was a white version of a black man too.

I think Obama will be just fine no matter what race labels he's given.

"DUHbya is by far the biggest idiot in the last 75 years!"

But his teeth are ok. So he is a good President.

I bet you a month of sunday's that Insannity uses that as a talking point in the next 6-8 months.....

"Or you could just sign your posts with "Herb." It'll get the same general message across."

Ding! When I see "herb" on the author line, TROLL flashes in front of my eyes and I jump to the next post. If the troll actually has something of substance to say it'll surface elswhere by someone else. No need for me to wade through his BS.

Gotta like the POWERHOUSE Demo candidates on board the Prez train . . . they've caught the righties on this board with the "headlight in the eyes" look and they're terrified.

ps: I'm hoping al gore gets on board too . . .

One is known by not only their friends, but also by their enemies.

I'm proud to be an enemy of the vicious, ad-hominem attacking leftists on this board.

If they liked me, Ol' Herb would be off track.

Herb

Mc74 said - " I have heard from several people I know that they consider him a white version of a black man and those people are black themselves."

And that was it? That's all they told you? Or is that just all you want to tell us?

OK.

From the top...a one, two, three, four.

Your implication is that race is a factor in determining for whom they would vote. Otherwise, why would it be brought up?

So. They hold an opinion that Obama is not black enough for them to give him their vote. So they will, what, exactly? Vote for the white guy? I mean, if race is THAT important of an issue to imply that he's not very black, what are they going to do? Draft Lil Jon? I mean, hey - qualifications aren't an issue. Get Patrick Ewing.

And at what point does making a call like that, using race, become something that smacks of racism?

"I have heard from several people I know that they consider him a white version of a black man and those people are black themselves."

What does that even mean? Do they mean the actual tone of his skin? Or do they mean actions or words? What would constitute a more black person?

And if what Fatboy says it true ( I can't find it ) - I thought he said " Obama is not Black." Then where does that leave all these black people who are making their respective calls based on something that is false to begin with. I guess at that point you'd have to say " You're right. he's not black enough. It's because he's not black." And give them a sno-cone or something. But I'm not even going to try and find out if he is " Black." I don't care if he is or not.

Now, there are things that I would care about if he was this or that. But his race, or percentage of a race, is not one of them.

Ain't that a beautiful thing Skep?

I'm lovin' it.

Me too on Al. There is a serious case for electing him as a check on our Supreme Court. Think of it as a referendum by the people to hold the line to respect the democratic process.

"Mr. Bush might suffer harm..." -- SCOTUS.

"But what about us?" -- Most Americans.

When people say, "He's not black enough." they actually mean he does not sound and act "black", as in accent, eubonics, movement, dress, etc...

It's a marginalization a whole lot of black people fall into. There is a clear difference between being well spoken, and not representing your race. (Shouldn't matter, but you know what I mean.)

My son struggled with this, until recently. They all went for job interviews, at the same place looking for some part time help. His friends went looking fresh and in style, he went looking good, suit, proper english, etc...

He has a job, they are being black...

My son gets it totally now. He can have fun with the style and the lingo. All good. But he also can go get a job and represent himself far better than his "really black" friends.

This is the Obama "not black enough" crap.

"I mean, if race is THAT important of an issue to imply that he's not very black, what are they going to do?"

Jesse Jackson lost to Mr. Clinton, who himself garnered a large segment of the black vote. If black people are given a choice, this tells us that they will likely vote for the person whom they feel best represents their interests...but with a chance to win.

Herb

Great, Obama's got a solid shot then.

Edit: And look at this shit!

(And I mean stuff that is beneath worth ok? Defensible use of the word.)

Al-Qaida wants Obama?

Wanker: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_obama_iraq

Obama: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/australia.obama.ap/


Is Obama Black Enough?

Another wanker: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/page/4/
(and I love the word wanker)

Lame wanker: http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/467300p-393261c.html


Obama Would Be A Pro Slavery Kind of Guy...

Multi Wanker: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/11/kristol-says-obama-would-be-a-pro-slavery-kinda-guy/


Obamas Hidden Childhood Medrossa?

Wanker Report: http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/467300p-393261c.html

Rightie Wankers: http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm


Obama is a smoker!
Wanker Report: http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/13641/1/Obama011707.wmv


Oops! Sorry for the Osama typo!

Lots 'o wankers: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/03/yahoo_news_captions_obama_photo_with_name_osama

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/02/cnn-apologizes-to-barack-obama/


He's a Muslim!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

(I got a few variants of this crap in my inbox)


Is he experienced enough?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-16-obama-experience-cover_x.htm

And there is lots more folks. The establishment is scared of this guy!


He is really a jerk, just pretending now!

Some wanker I didn't know was a wanker: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/obama_natural/?source=whitelist

Obama has an extremely slight chance to win. Enough of a chance to run. He's an empty canvas. He hasn't DONE anything to build a record that opponents could slice and dice him with. Which could also diminish his chances. It's hard to say which way his lack of experience will land- good or bad.

His middle name is Hussein. Regardless of his Christian upbringing, that middle name could kill his chances, especially when inserted in to the Clinton mudslinging war room of personal attacks.

On the issues, he's in favor of pulling troops out of Iraq. He thinks health care is a right for everyone. Based on what he has on his web site http://obama.senate.gov/issues/, it's difficult to say where he stands on other issues. The web site is filled with feel good statements that mean nothing.

Will his skin color hurt or help him? With a hundred years of liberal white guilt in play, liberals love the guy. But will black voters see him as an Uncle Tom in black sheep clothing? I don't know.

With the Deaniacs putting Hillary on the constant defensive for her votes in favor of the Iraq war, she's not a sure thing. Other candidates: Edwards, Kucinich: not a chance. Kucinich- heck, he's 5 foot nothing in heels. Edwards? Yeah, right. He's more left wing than Venezuala's Chavez.

When is the last time a short guy won the Presidency? Actually I remember reading something somewhere that historically speaking, the taller presidential candidate won about 60% of the time. I'll have to look that up sometime.

Right now, I'd say the Democratic candidate for President is up for grabs. The Republican candidate, whoever it turns out to be, will probably lose anyway, even if he were Ronald Reagan reincarnated. And for that I say, Thanks for nothing, George W. Bush. Thanks for nothing.

"Thanks for nothing, George W. Bush. Thanks for nothing."

Yep, this is what right-leaning newspapers across America will headline their editorial pages with the day after Election day 2008.


ps: Al Gore on the Supreme Court? Not a bad idea KSKD. Hillary should put all her foes on the court so they don't challenge her for re-election in 2012!

Obama was on 60 Minutes this evening with Steve Kroft. He had the perfect answer.

Kroft: "There's one poll that shows Hillary Clinton is leading 53 to 27 among African-Americans," Kroft says. "Are you surprised by that? Are you disappointed by that?"

"Not at all," Obama says. "I think that there is a assumption on the part of some commentators that somehow, the black community is so unsophisticated that the minute you put an African-American face up on the screen, that they automatically say, 'That's our guy.' A black candidate has to earn black votes the same way that he's gotta earn white votes. And that's exactly how it should be."

"If black people are given a choice, this tells us that they will likely vote for the person whom they feel best represents their interests...but with a chance to win."

Maybe. But to imply that this candidate evokes the same reaction as Jesse Jackson is something with which I would disagree. You also imply that the results speak for themselves. But what they speak to is not as easy to interpret as you make them sound. Plus, once again, you're talking about history. I'm not saying it should be ignored. But I am talking about now, this candidate and his prospective opponents. You can't just apply every past situation, to every present situation, and say that it will always turn out that way.

That's a big difference betwen you and I Herb. You just cling to history too hard for me to relate much. I haven't forgotten it. But I am eager to apply it to the present.

Let me restate that last sentence.

I am more interested in using the current climate as a gauge for things than you seem to be.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

George Santayana

Well while you want to communicate using bumper-sticker speak, I'll use my own version.

http://www.billdavenport.com/owls/macrameowls-Pages/Image41.html

http://www.ymcaswimminganddiving.org/2001Lc/Devotions/Tuesday%20Morning.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12917594.200-science-do-old-people-really- live-in-the-past-.html

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sparkyande139386.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/

http://advisers.macquarie.com.au/advisers/news/forward_thinking.htm

http://www.owlhouse.co.za/images/old-man.jpg

http://thebottlecapman.com/images/Unused%20Soda%20Cork2/Wake%20Up.jpg

http://schinckel.blogsome.com/images/BrokenRecord.jpg

"If they liked me, Ol' Herb would be a functioning human being who's heart pumped blood instead of bullshit and impotent bile"

Fixed that for you. Also note he signed his last post in this thread with someone else's name

"And if what Fatboy says it true ( I can't find it ) - I thought he said " Obama is not Black."

Nah, I was responding to Nwokie, who flat out said "Obama isn't black" and "Black people won't vote for Obama" which I thought was ludicrous on like 30 different levels, as well as shortchanging the mindset of the black voter, as the assumption seems to be "Black people don't care what the platform is as long as the candidate is black."

To which Alan Keyes says "oh really?"

Sorry, sorry. I knew there was a reason it didn't sit well to attribute that quote to you.

Honest mistake.

Obama will see staying in the Senate as the better option for effectiveness and visibility than disappearing into the obscurity of VP, especially in Hillary's administration. Hillary's management style will be to install weak subordinates and micromanage, and Obama doesn't appear to be the type to focus his life on attending state funerals.

She might go for Edwards, but I'm not convinced he can break through.

The beating Hillary's taking now over her Iraq vote is a problem for all senators. Any senator's voting record is a cornucopia of thought-starters for an attack ad. Vote for an appropriations bill with some unreported last-minute amendment, and suddenly you've "voted to legalize axe murder!"

McCain has baggage which makes him a non-starter for fiscal conservatives, border security types, and has his name on the law that put limits on free speech in campaigns. (And now...he's mulling running his campaign without federal funding to get around his own law!) He's been disloyal to his party when it would get him on MSNBC, and then there's that little banking scandal. Next!

There's a reason no US senator has been elected since 1960.

Despite her real estate dealings, which absolutely will come up again, I think Hillary is going to be strong enough to win the Dem primary, and she'll have an awesome campaign organization. VP will be a smaller name.

The GOP side is harder to predict. Mitt Romney will be intriguing to watch. He is a corporate turn-around specialist who inherited both the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics and the Massachusetts Governor's job with horrendous deficits, and left both with surplusses. He looks/sounds presidential, and appears to have no major blems.

But he flipped from his pro-choice position of years ago, and he's LDS. The question of "can a Mormon be elected?" will be a distraction, but also an opportunity for attention. So far, it looks as if the religious right's major voices are set to endorse him if he gets close.

I do believe this election is shaping up as the best opportunity in years for third-party or indy candidates. If you feel both major parties will take us straight down the tube, why not vote for a Ron Paul or Ralph Nader? If they get 10 per cent of the popular vote and don't carry a single state, the resulting shock to the major parties may result in more reform than if they actually won.

If you've always wanted a "none of the above" option on the ballot, the indy candidates will make that statement for you. Many voters will look at the ballot, and decide they have nothing to lose with a protest vote.

Representative Charles B. Rangel, the second-most senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus, was interviewed on New York Public Television WLIW in March of 2005. He was asked for his quick reaction to various people. The first was the shrub.

"Well," Rangel said. "I really think that he shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all; it shows that, in this great country, anybody can become president."

Laides and Germs, Obamma won’t win, or get nominated for that matter. Maybe a VP nod- if that; probably not though.

Ultimately, the president is in charge of the military- the worlds strongest and most powerful Military. Mr. O has NO military experience.

Skin color. I have not a racist bone in my body, but lots of people do. Many will simply NOT elect a black candidate.

Experience. Mr. O lacks the real life experience to hold the presidency.

With that being said, Hilary can’t win/ won’t get a nod either. Hillary’s been a part of lots of shady deals- This will ALL come out. Also, over the last 14 years, there has been an over kill of the names “ Clinton” & “ Bush”. Hillary lacks military experience, or really any experience at all to be the most powerful political person on earth. In addition, there are a lot of people who WILL NOT vote for a woman.

SO, even though they’re the most talked about right now, I’m sure that within the next year and a half or so, both will realize they’re over their head, and go back to their cush Senate seats.

My prediction for the winners of ’08 ? Gulianni/ McCain

When this current group of draft deferred rich kids led by an AWOL pilot came to power, military experience meant nothing. They went on to smear true heroes in Vietnam to win again. The way that many of our troops currently feel, I would be pretty careful about playing the service card if I were the Republicans.

I hate to break up that little Rudy victory party too, but Obama has a lack of experience that is proportionate to his lack of shadiness. At least that is how it stands right now.

I've said it before, Rudy Giuliani ought to be savvy enough to stay as far away from the political microscope as he can. If he isn't smart, his candidacy will simply be a short burst of wishful thinking followed by slowly drowning in decades of his own fecal matter. Do just a little digging and you will find that even Revlon doesn't have enough lipstick for that pig.

John McCain has made a few pretty big mistakes in his time in public life. The fundraising mess is one of the most obvious. His military record is stellar, but the same "no senator since 1960" logic applies here too. He is also a lone gunman of sorts on the current and very messy situation in Iraq. Not a high value stock to begin with and losing points every day.

The shrub has essentially destroyed any chance his party has to retain the office. Without a miracle, a far more obvious election fraud, or a coup, I cannot see the GOP in that house on Pennsylvania Avenue after the election. A shame really, I like a good horse race, but they did it to themselves.

You may right. Obama may not get the nod. Hillary might not either. It is a long shot, but Bill Richardson could get the nomination, and if he does, both the elephants and donkeys might be on the same page. We have a long season ahead and a lot could change.

Timryan writes:
Ultimately, the president is in charge of the military- the worlds strongest and most powerful Military. Mr. O has NO military experience.

George W. Bush? Ducked the Vietnam war. Bill Clinton ducked the Vietnam war. Ronald Reagan? Made movies in Hollywood during World War II. Of our last four presidents, only one (Bush the Elder) had military experience. So I'd say not having military experience means little in the coming election.

My prediction for the winners of �08 ? Gulianni/ McCain

But Giuliani has no military experience - which you used to disqualify Obama. Do you actually read what you write???

Andrew

Paulwarren writes:
I do believe this election is shaping up as the best opportunity in years for third-party or indy candidates. If you feel both major parties will take us straight down the tube, why not vote for a Ron Paul or Ralph Nader? If they get 10 per cent of the popular vote and don't carry a single state, the resulting shock to the major parties may result in more reform than if they actually won.

Ross Perot's 19% in the 1992 election seemed to have zero impact on reform on either party. Why would 10% make a difference in 2008? What has changed?

Even Ralph Nader's 2.7%, small as it was, is widely considered to have thrown the 2000 election to Bush (in Florida and in New Hampshire). And yet I'd say that had no effect on reforming the the Democratic party. Sorry, I don't see how any 3rd party candidate is going to have impact on reforming either major party unless the 3rd party gets MORE votes than one of the major party, perhaps. Just don't see it happening anytime soon.

Andrew

Giuliani/McCain is an imaginary ticket. It'll never happen (sort of like my Hilary/Barack ticket) and it probably shouldn't happen. It's a vortex of swirling negativity.

All Giuliani really has that's unassailable is that he put on a succession of fire helmets and ran all over New York in September/October of 2001. Before that he was flat out HATED. There was a reason he wasn't running for mayor anymore, it's because he knew he couldn't win, because he had done so much to spoil the political capital and goodwill he'd once had. The last italian that fascist got hung at the end of World War II.

And McCain sold his soul utterly in 2004. It was possibly the most depressing event in a campaign season full of head-slapping decisions by both the Kerry and Bush campaigns. McCain posing and smiling with the men who had no problem pissing all over his time in vietnam and running his name and reputation far into the dirt? All anyone has to do is show McCain getting roasted in 2000, and then smiling and giving Bush a hug in 2004, and any semblance of integrity or strength he appears to have would vanish like a fart in the wind.

McCain WOULD have been a good choice until he FLIP/FLOPPED so many damn times. And the fact that he can't stand up for himself! He let the neo-CONers (Rove and Co.) trounce him in 2000 and 2004 so DUHbya could be Prez. Duhbya and CO. made McCain their BITCH!
I couldn't vote for a pussy like that!

that's going a little too far. McCain isn't a pussy, he just played politics really poorly. He knew what he was doing, and I get the feeling he hated the taste of it at first. He just got lost in the sauce there between 2002 and 2006

But the man is definitely not a pussy.

Yep.

If I were the Democratic or Republican campaign strategists of candidates opposing McCain, I'd be reviewing the attacks Bush made against McCain in 2000 and then show them together now. Show what a hypocrite McCain is for embracing a guy who treated him like dirt. It's one thing to forgive someone for treating you so badly - it's another to embrace them.

I remember a Bush campaign appearance in August 2000 that I attended in Portland. McCain was by then tagging along with Bush to show that they had made up. But McCain, who spoke before Bush, sure didn't sound happy to be there.

I think between 2000 and now McCain has had several quiet conversations with prominent Republicans about how he ought to proceed, what he needs to do to win the nomination in 2008. I think he's simply agreed to compromise his approach and rhetoric to win. We'll see.

Andrew

I'm with FBR. You do not go through what Senator McCain has been through without being one of the toughest men imaginable.

He simply buckled to the pressure of his party, smiled and did what he thought was best. They shamed him, refused his advice and told him to shut up, get in the back seat, eat his fries and suck on his dungshake.

One day, he may be a formidable enemy. If they push too far or something major comes to light, he is just the man to be spearheading an investigation. They made an American hero look foolish and abused his good will. He might not be nearly as pleasant in the future.

I would not underestimate his ability to play poker. Not yet. He might be the man who cuts off the arm to save the body. His party and his country are still more important than the Yankees in the cowboy hats.

Obama/McCain. There's a curveball from the imaginary ticket department.

Right about RG. However, he handled sept 11th , and that's good enough for me.

Military experience - or the equivlent, should be a requirement.

"Handling" recovery after September 11 has nothing to do with military experience. And Rudy's record before 9/11 wasn't all that hot.

Anyway, Rudy has zero chance of winning the Republican nomination as a pro-choicer who is now on Wife #3. Those "family values" fundamentalist Christians who wield such influence now in the Republican party would never allow it. Rudy's best hope is VP.

Andrew

"Military experience - or the equivlent, should be a requirement."

Yeah, I dunno about that, and I don't think Rudy doing photo-op after photo-op with various hats on his head while talking to as many reporters and media members as possible is any equivalent to Military Experience.

Rudy gave a lot of good speeches, and steered the city nicely, but I don't see his actions post-attack as anything other than COMPETENCE. not excellence. The funny thing is that if it wasn't for our current president's scared ineptitude showing through, Rudy's competence would never have been considered excellence. It was the contrast that helped there.

How's THIS for imaginary cross-party ticket that fulfills the "military experience" requirement?

Powell/Clark

oo-rah.

Yeah, well, you don't need two generals on one ticket. And Powell's political viability is dead after his infamous UN speech about Iraqi WMD in February 2003. Too bad - probably the most decent guy in the first Bush administration. Had he run for president in 2000, he would have beaten Gore I'm pretty sure and made very different choices than Bush made.

Andrew

"Many will simply NOT elect a black candidate."

They would if the candidate was Condoleeza Rice.

Herb

Thanks, Herb, now I have something to keep me laughing after all the redneck jokes get old.

You might be a Redneck if you ask:

Is Condoleeza Rice a White rice or a Brown rice!

LOL

That was bad....sorry but I could not help myself!

Obama as VP won't fly. The ones who are don't like the idea of him as President due to unPC reasons wouldn't vote the Hillary/Obama ticket, and I think Guliani/McCann would make it interesting. I saw Mike Huckabee in an interview and liked what I heard. He is also one Republican who warned against underestimating Hillary. May not have a snow balls chance in Hell...

Herb said - " "Many will simply NOT elect a black candidate."

They would if the candidate was Condoleeza Rice. "

Maybe you were joking. But in case you are not;

Please explain why someone would who not vote for a black candidate, would vote for Condoleeza Rice.

Pretty please?

Herb said>>>>
"Many will simply NOT elect a black candidate."

They would if the candidate was Condoleeza Rice.

LMFAO!!!!!

Either Ms. Rice or Alan Keyes.

Herb

I'd vote for Hilary before Keyes!
Ms. Rice wouldn't even win the woman vote!
Come on Herb....

This is not a partisan or gender issue if you are comparing Rice and Clinton.

Both are insiders who owe the wealthiest folks on the planet a favor.

No thanks.

I'll pass on seconds.

I'm telling you guys, it's the teeth!

Wasn't Doctor Rice in a band?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Teeth_and_The_Electric_Mayhem

Yeah, right, missing.

Everytime you mock the looks of others, we know you must be God's gift to women.

It also reveals how little of substance you can bring to the table.

Herb

January 2009:

"Wow."

"What a great lineup of candidates to choose from, that sure was a spirited election season."

"It sure is gorgeous today."

"Crisp, clear, and hey, look, there goes Barak Obama in the motorcade."

"Who would have thought South Africa would have an African President before we did?"

"It is so hard sometimes to catch up with the speedy progress of former dictatorships, but by jingo we sure did it this time."

"Well, you know it would be easier, but sometimes, they just get so damn liberal."

"Woooo-hooo, Barak!"

"He waved back."

"He is a nice President."

"Yeah, this new guy uses all of his fingers."

Herb Said - "Everytime you mock the looks of others, we know you must be God's gift to women.

It also reveals how little of substance you can bring to the table."

Oh come on. Missing has served a table full of meaty discussion. Just because you don't want the thin wafer mint doesn't discount that we've all enjoyed the food.

My God. I've turned into H. Monty Perot.

"Missing has served a table full of meaty discussion."

Anybody have a Zantac?

No, no, it was great. I may pack some home.

Here’s the thing, though. The Evangelical , Conservative part of the Republican party had their candidate for two elections. You can’t keep on going that direction, if you want your party to stay in office. It’s a shame that the polar extremes are the ones that seem to have the power for the Rep’s and Dem’s. I’m telling you: The Rep’s KNOW what they’re up against here. If they F*ck up, Hillary WILL be in the Whitehouse- their biggest fear. Compromises WILL have to be made to make sure this doesn’t happen.


Fatboy-. 9/11 WAS an all out war zone. The most powerful city in the us went into a state of unimaginable chaos, and there are some who would have ran and hid. RG didn’t do that, and handled the situation PERFECTLY.

I’m telling you, the plan will be for a RG/ Mcain ticket. It’s in the works- I guarantee it!.

Ran and hid...like Cheney?

I think politics run in cycles...if you look at history, we have cycles where the country was all for democrats, then they get sick of that party and we go for a generation/decade (give or take a couple of years) of the republican agenda.

Bottom line-- we are generally dissatisfied with both parties, we have outgrown the two party system. But enough of MY agenda...I think the country is turning towards a cycle of Democrats. This could change if the congress and house don't get some things done in the next year and a half...but I feel that the country has tired of this particular strain of the Republican party for the time being...you can usually tell when cycles are about to change because the scandals and horrible things start hitting mainstream news every other week...

Copernicus said: "Ran and hid...like Cheney?"

Both the President and Vice President were taken to secure locations by the Secret Service. It is a requirement.

Cheap shot.

Speaking of shot, as I've said before, I'd still rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride in Ted Kennedy's car!

Yeah, but who would you rather have a beer with?

Tim, I like you. I gotta call you on Rudy though, really, you have to dig on Giuliani man. He destroyed small business and gave sweet insider deals to huge developers. Intentionally or not, he cut out the small fry so big mafia could gain power. The sickest part is that his police force treated ethnic minorities and the poor worse than almost any mayor outside of Alabama.

We also cannot ignore all the racist hiring practices and gross corruption of officials that happened on his watch. As a goodbye present, his office was caught long after the fact for lying to our 9/11 heroes and victims about exposure risks. Now thousands of rescuers, salvage workers and business owners in the area could get sick, hundreds are sick and some have died.

He is not evil incarnate, he is simply greedy. He got a whole lot more mileage out of his disaster than C. Ray Nagin did. No offense New York, but this is New Orleans' time. You had your friends help. We all did as much as we could for you. Now get focused on the real tragedy. Not to be cold, Rudy, but if it is purely about casualty numbers, property damage and unbelievable grief, the Saints beat your Giants by a ton. Forever.

Herb said>>>
It also reveals how little of substance you can bring to the table.

Huh.... Herb brings it??

"Bottom line-- we are generally dissatisfied with both parties, we have outgrown the two party system."

B I N G O !

Copernicus hit the nail right on the head.

A democracy with a free market does not last long with one two-headed money monster in charge.

Eventually, even freedom is consolidated.

AHH, littlsongs my friend--- I have problems with RG. I have problems with EVERYONE! However, 9/11 at The Hurricane are two different things.

Ray Nagin *KNEW* the hurricane was coming The Governor , Kathleen Blanco KNEW the hurricane was coming. The city council- KNEW the hurricane ( all democrats, btw) was coming. What did they do? NOTHING! And then when all hell broke lose- it was everyone else’s fault but theirs.

RG had no idea 9/11 was coming.

Politicians are greedy. They make side deals. They can be shrewd. They screw up. However, the ultimate job of the President is to defend America- period. RG proved to me that he is capable of maintaining order in a state of utter chaos and confusion. Ask yourself this: in the case of a national emergency- who would you want at the helm?: Hillary or RG ?

Neither.

They would both do the same thing.

Rush into the frame, look like a survivor and milk the camera.

I need a leader.

Someone who can lead, even when it is boring.

America, and I imagine the world, at this point, could use some peace and quiet.

Two babbling drama queens are not going to help.

I also respectfully disagree with your assessment of Nagin.

He knew about the hurricane. He did not know he would be abandoned by our government, ignored by our leadership and left to die.

Rudy was never, ever left to die.

Testify, Littlesongs! You go, dude!

Who was that president that went to the scene and called out to people, "Don't worry! Your President is here!"? Guess it doesn't matter who exactly, only that we had at least one!

I want a leader like that. My wife was watching something and commented about that. We both thought for a moment in wonder about how things have become so disconnected. Today we fly over in a heli, do a press release, then go have lunch.

How did we get here and how can we go back to, "Don't worry Ma'am, your President is here!"

Yeah, what Sutton said!

Go Dude!

That President, I believe, was the Great Society's own, Lyndon Johnson. He made tragic and glaring errors in judgment that affected our military and foreign policy forever, but he did not ever turn his back on the American people in a crisis.

“I am here because I want to see with my own eyes what the unhappy alliance of wind and water have done to this land and people,” Johnson, speaking without a microphone, told a small crowd that had gathered to meet him at the airport. “You can be sure that the Federal Government’s total resources will be tuned to Louisiana to help this state and its citizens find its way back from this tragedy.”

Here is the way leaders have handled hurricanes:

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/AV.hom/Hurricane/audio_transcript.shtm

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=152

Actually no one knew the hurrican was coming, the Hurricane alert was for the entire southern coast,from florida to texas.

And Hurricans have a habit of veering at the last minute.

So FEMA prepares for the aftermath of the entire area. FEMA is not and has never been a first provider.

It was the responsibility of the local govts and the individuals to prepare to be without the basic necessities for a few days.

Unfortuantly, many of the people of NO, elected to have Hurricane parties, rather than prepare.

I lived on St Croix for 3 years and went through 3 hurricanes, and there at the slightest hint of a hurricane, everyone stores some water and canned goods, to tide themselves over.

It would be like the people in N Dakota saying theres a blizzard coming, we'll just let the Fed govt take care of us, we dont have to do anything!

Timryan writes:
Ray Nagin *KNEW* the hurricane was coming The Governor , Kathleen Blanco KNEW the hurricane was coming. The city council- KNEW the hurricane ( all democrats, btw) was coming. What did they do? NOTHING! And then when all hell broke lose- it was everyone else�s fault but theirs.

The city and state were not equipped to handle a disaster like the flooding caused by the levies breaking (let's remember, it wasn't the hurricane itself, it was the LEVIES breaking and the resulting floods). Everyone knew the hurricane was coming; everyone hoped the levies would not break. Once they did, FEMA was the agency we all fund through federal taxpayer dollars that was supposed to move in and help. Instead, it took them critical days to do so. I certainly don't see how you can blame the governments of New Orleans and Louisiana for that.

Andrew

Tim, I don't want you to think I was doggin' on you.

I just think that it is easy to get a great impression and leave it there in your mind. Most of the time, that is good, it helps friendships grow and so on. Sometimes, like with leaders, you aren't given anything else to work with -- unlike a new pal who keeps sharing with you -- and that is where the quicksand starts. The media and the people did not do their homework on the shrub. It was right in front of them the whole time, they chose to ignore it and now we are all paying the price.

That said, I really like this Obama fellow. However, he has to measure up to scrutiny. I am gonna watch the Chicago papers, skim the blogs -- even the wingnuts -- and see what he is achieving, in spite of the campaign. If he gets a whole lot of positive things done while he is stumping, he might be just the multi-tasking President that our country needs and this century demands. However, if he is a charlatan -- or as Herb says, "all hat and no cattle" -- then I will move on and try to make a different informed decision.

Rudy, Condi, Hillary, Joe, John and many others have been put under that microscope and did not measure up. I am hoping to find someone who does. I am glad that we all agree that the vote itself is important enough to talk about so early on and keep debating over the next year or so before the primaries. Once that herd is thinned, we cannot simply go back and change it.

By the way, as usual, Saturday completely rocked. :0)

Here's an interesting piece about Obama: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/brian-mclaren-advice-for-bar ack-obama.html.

Obama is like Tiger Woods. White People like him cause he is only half black and back people mock him for not being black enough.

He will never beat the Clinton war machine, Hillary is a master of lieing and maninpulation.

I would rather have a black President anyday over one that bleeds for five days a month.

Cochise, your position is a little too nuanced for me. Could you spell out how you really feel about the possibility of having a female president? (And presumably, Hillary has gone through menopause by age 59.)

Andrew

"He will never beat the Clinton war machine, Hillary is a master of [lying] and [manipulation]."

Touche' Cochise.

I'd take a hill with you any day.

Herb

"He will never beat the Clinton war machine, Hillary is a master of lieing and maninpulation.

I would rather have a black President anyday over one that bleeds for five days a month."

First of all - SIC!

Second - ok - we have a bet. The bet is that Obama will lose to Clinton.

JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN.

The determining question will be " Did Obama lose to Hilary? Yes or No? "

We'll determine the stakes later. But for now, that's the bet, right?

So according to Cochise, Obama has won the racist/sexist vote. Now if he can win over the bigots, warmongers, apocalyptic doomsayers, and stars-and-bars flying NASCAR fans, then Obama has the majority of Republicans on his side.

Hey, I am a life-long Republican.

I would vote for Mr. Obama in a heartbeat over Mrs. Clinton.

Just saying her name gives me the chills.

Herbert Milhous Nixon V

Same here. At this point I'll take anyone but the attention whore otherwise known as Hillary.

Don't fool yourself, you do not like here for what she has done or will do, you like her cause her last name is Clinton. People will vote for her just to see her Husband back in the White House.

President
Hillary
CLINTON!!!

Ha ha ha!!!!!!

Andrew

"Obama is like Tiger Woods."

Cochise, I simply love Tiger Woods. I am not sure he is relevant. You attempted to proclaim something I am willing to bet is beyond your field of vision. "This person is generalizing and discussing race perception? I wonder where that comes from?" So, I pondered a moment and formed a hypothesis. It is crudely defined, but here goes:

If you want to compare Black people just randomly, why is it you have to pick out a sports figure? Do you know any Blacks outside of ESPN? There's millions of 'em man, everywhere, can you dig it?

Granted, Tiger is a superstar in a sport with a long history of anti-Semitism, and that currently refuses women unless they are unbelievably talented, but token Asian jailbait. Is that your demographic?

Maybe you know more about him than any other Black man because of that wonderful group of select rich folks that love to watch him sink those putts. "Oh, my, don't it just remind you of an old plantation? Look at him go. Lord have mercy does that bring back memories of the good old days." These folks are there, even to this day, for the curiosity. Are you one of those folks?

Not long ago at all, this was an elitist Black hating sport that was filling it's adult diapers when he won his first Masters. A Black greenskeeper, perhaps, after hours, where nobody could see, but a golfer? No way. "Gosh boys, we might have to hide the hoods and sheets in another part of the clubhouse."

I have always enjoyed the game, but folks like you keep reminding me why golf at the Muni is fun. If I go anywhere more cushy than those well worn links, someone is probably leaving somebody far more talented out, for my sorry white ass with a wicked slice.

Here is a really simple question: Can you name one Black without a ball, like say a professor, that you have seen or even heard of?

I won't quiz you on his books, interviews, lectures or television appearances. I won't ask you what makes him important to Americans of all backgrounds. I won't bore you with his many awards. I'll make it real easy with a mass marketed popular culture reference:

http://www.blackfilm.com/20030509/features/aamatrix.shtml

Next time, if you want to be guilty and white, or simply look like less of a dumbass, try an easy out, look a little smarter, try Doctor Cornel West.

Nobody makes Phil Mickelson stand for doughy white guys. He gets to be Phil. Obama is Obama. Does he play a game? Sure, that is what politics are, but public service is not a sport. It is a calling. If you want to compare them for being pioneers, that is fair, but it seemed like you thought America cared about shades and tones. Just so you know, most folks of all colors could care less about the palette. It is about the man.

By the by, if virtually any of us was around in person for the not so thinly disguised reference to the cycles of a woman's body, we probably would have wedged your nuts under your kidneys with a work boot. Have some respect chump. Much as we might hate to admit it, you had a Mom too.

"You've been listening to Beat the Troll, a bi-weekly program where politics are discussed by panel of experts who see if they can, Beat the Troll. Now, for something completely different..."

Chocise said>>>>"He will never beat the Clinton war machine, Hillary is a master of [lying] and [manipulation]."

How about more like
"He will never beat the Bush war machine, DUHbya is a master of [lying] and [manipulation]."

Thanx littlesongs. just a friendly conversation 'tween friends!

Herb, Cochise, other hard-righters:

You constantly bemoan the left's "blind hatred" for Bush, but you seem to be just as blindly hating Hillary (and Bill I suppose, by extension). We've seen the lists of things Bush has done to stir the left's ire, maybe even hatred, of Bush.

But what specifically has Hillary DONE (not just your impression of her, not just her rhetoric) to cause you to hate her so much?

"But what specifically has Hillary DONE (not just your impression of her, not just her rhetoric) to cause you to hate her so much?"

Attempted to nationalize our health care system, which is the best in the world. I'm fine with tweaking it, and I dislike insurance companies, but regulate them, not give it to government.

She's a hard leftist who tries to hide that fact.

She's a phoney and leverages class envy to the max. While posing as a champion of the poor, she's got all these houses and yet points to Republicans as the party of the wealthy.

She stole a bunch of stuff from Air Force I and the White House when she left.

She's a commie lib who is symptomatic of those who spat on our soldiers when they returned from Vietnam.

She has a blood-curdling scream when she gets wound up in front of a crowd.

And those are her good points.

Herb

I have to admit - those are the EXACT same kinds of things that would bother me in a person if I didn't like them.

"Attempted to nationalize our health care system, which is the best in the world. I'm fine with tweaking it, and I dislike insurance companies, but regulate them, not give it to government."

It's far from the best in the world, and any attempt to get health care to those who do not have it now will be labeled as "nationalizing" health care by the right. Do you think the Oregon Health Plan is a form of "nationalized" health care?

"She's a hard leftist who tries to hide that fact."

Bush is a hard rightist who also tries to hide the fact. Hey, all politicians tack to the center when running for office, why hate only Hillary for that?

"She's a phoney and leverages class envy to the max. While posing as a champion of the poor, she's got all these houses and yet points to Republicans as the party of the wealthy."

This is disengenuous. Almost all people in Congress are millionaires. Their financial success in life is seen by the electorate as a qualification for high office; if you cannot manage your own affairs successfully, how can you be expected to manage the affairs of state? By the standard you set for Hillary, not a single Congressman has the right to speak in behalf of the poor or downtrodden in society.

"She stole a bunch of stuff from Air Force I and the White House when she left."

Cite the proof if you can, and I'll give you this one. Otherwise it's an unsubstantiated attack.

"She's a commie lib who is symptomatic of those who spat on our soldiers when they returned from Vietnam."

You're sliding back into name-calling. I asked you for documentable actions on her part. (BTW, very sneaky maneuver trying to attach an action to her that she didn't do)

"She has a blood-curdling scream when she gets wound up in front of a crowd."

Okay - it is something she has done. And the most superficial reason I can imagine for rejecting a person as a leader. Says a lot about you, Herb.


"And those are her good points."

Glib. But I want to hear bad actions on her part. You're bobbing and weaving. C'mon, we can take it. Tell us what Hillary has DONE to disqualify her has a good and/or competent President.

And please understand, I am no big fan of Hillary. I just refuse to reject her out of hand as you have. I'm actually looking for some guidance here. But not accusations, bias, sexism, anti-Clintonism. Evidence in what she has done in government to convince me that she is unfit to lead.

Herb's BLIND hatred for Hilary is unbelievable!

None of these things is worthy of hate. Disregard, dislike, etc... all defensible.

Sorry, but I wouldn't replay to a "why do you hate bush?" question. because I don't hate him.

Are you sure you hate Hilary Herb?

I just want to be perfectly clear on this before we go any farther.

Do you, in fact hate in the true meaning of the word, Hilary?

The continuous Hilary bashing by the neo-CONs is OUTRAGEOUS.
The BLIND-HATRED for Hilary inside Herb is poisonous!
I think it was Herb who lectured us ALL about our hatred for DUHbya.

I do not like Hillary because she is dishonest, a corporate insider and represents a generation of politicians who have cheerfully mortgaged our future. See, all you hard-liners, that was easy. It isn't about her gender or her smile or her lack of a sense of humor, simply her qualities as a politician.

Did she, "overstep her bounds" as a First Lady? Well, that argument was made back when many of our current Hillary bashers had Bill to throw mud at too. I still see no evidence. She was public, yes, she made some bonehead moves politically, yes, but she did not rank among even the top ten for crazy or mean or nutty. See for yourself:

http://www.firstladies.org/index.htm

Some amazing things in history have been done by the "better half" of a Presidency for the benefit of the country. I will not list them all, but I am willing to pick one. How about Eleanor Roosevelt?

http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/tuskegee-airmen.htm
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/tuskegee.html

If I were a Republican, I would remember how the very first White House my party held was occupied by a First Lady who generated a great deal of controversy. To say that she was merely disliked would be an understatement.

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=15&subjectID=2

Zap Hillary on the issues all day, but if it is about anything more than her record, hold your tongue, or in this case, your mouse. She did not redecorate her home on the public dollar, while our troops shivered outside in the cold, without blankets, just a few miles down the road.

Thanks Littlesongs. I'm not sure I can agree with all your concerns about Hillary, but you make very good points. I'm continually hung up on her constant need to play the political game, even when being simply straightforward would work better.

When it comes to honesty in a politician, it seems a waste of time to seperate the honest from the dishonest, since they all have ways of warping or distorting the truth. I could rail on Bush all day for lying to the American people, but what really galls me is his crappy overall policy decisions. Honest or not, he's simply a poor manager.

Back to Hillary: she will gain points in my book when she declares up front that her past support for the war in Iraq was a mistake. But that apology is almost past due. She seems to want to play both sides of the fence, again as a political strategy. I just shake my head. I think she has the skills to be a great President, but her self-serving nature turns me off.

Edsel, once again, thank you. I generalized and deserved a nip on the behind.

"...it seems a waste of time to separate the honest from the dishonest, since they all have ways of warping or distorting the truth... what really galls me is his [or her] crappy overall policy decisions. Honest or not, he's [or she's] simply a poor manager... She will gain points in my book when she declares up front that her past support for the war in Iraq was a mistake. But that apology is almost past due. She seems to want to play both sides of the fence, again as a political strategy. I just shake my head."

You said it much better, and much smarter, than I did.

(edit)

Here is the current problem weighed against a future problem, as I see it, in fairly simple terms.

shrub: War. Out of control subordinates.

War bad. Dumb move. What is worse is letting all the wolves and chickens mix for over half a decade, and have a war too. "Power, Corruption and Lies" is a great album that I love, and a criminally, tragically, pathetically bad way to run a government, that I currently do not love. To complete this baffling irony, he and his pa stole the New Order bit too. You ruin everything mister shrub.

Hillary: War. Utterly controlled subordinates.

War bad. Dumb move. What is worse is her potential to micromanage, and have a war too. I have yet to witness this approach to leading people achieve success, ever. Hovering over the shoulders of experts and nitpicking makes them angry and stupid. Jumping on the rookies every minute makes them, naturally, jumpy. Being a hardass means that you earn a whole lot of fear and not a shred of respect. What gets done? I suspect, the product of anger, stupidity and fear is probably not going to be much different than what we have now.

Power, corruption and lies? Or anger, stupidity and fear? I say neither. This next government is going to have to get everyone moving in the same direction for a better future in a confident stampede, not a worried shuffle. He or she is going to have to build an old fashioned coalition, proving once again that in some ways, the parliaments have it right and usually get more done. We have a good system though, and we had damn well better start using it to get us out of this huge domestic and international mess.

Could Obama be that guy? He does deserve our attention and could potentially earn our votes.

"Do you, in fact hate in the true meaning of the word, Hilary?"

No, and don't lie about something I have not said or believe. However, I trust her as much as black-hearted communists like Fidel Castro and Hanoi Jane Fonda.

"Tell us what Hillary has DONE to disqualify her has a good and/or competent President."

Filegate-900 missing FBI files that all of a sudden turned up. These files were illegally obtained. The possession of ONE file sent Chuck Colson, Mr. Nixon's aide, to PRISON. The finger points directly at Mrs. Clinton and the files were on her husband's Republican opponents.

Travelgate-White House travel office firings.

Whitewater-Hillary was in on that one, too.

Rose Law Record Billing Records-2 sets of fingerprints are on them: Hillary Clinton's and Vince Foster's.

Vince Foster's mysterious death-Potentially incriminating files are missing from Vince Foster's office.

Hillary's cattle futures scheme. She turned $1,000 into nearly $100,000 in 10 months.

Hillary's documented anti-Semitism: she screamed an anti-Semitic slur at a campaign worker.

That enough for ya, Trixter? There's plenty more.

Herb

I didn't lie Herb. I asked you for come clarification, there is a difference.

Either we hate somebody, or we don't. There is no middle ground in this.

So, I gotta ask: Why are we using the word hate here, when we are really talking about disapprove, dislike, etc...?

"Why are we using the word hate here..."

I said I didn't trust her.
Ask Trixter. He used the word hate. He should either prove it or eat his ham-fisted words.

Herb

Herb, I'll admit that I was the first to accuse you of hating Hillary. You say you do not, and I'll accept that.

But the kind of distrust or disdain for Hillary that you have expressed looks, sounds, smells and tastes very much like the distrust and disdain that many liberals feel for Bush. And you have called *that* Hate.

So if you chafe at having that word applied to you, you need to stop using it to describe others.

I GREATLY distrust Mrs. Clinton and earnestly try not to hate anyone.

Josef Stalin is as close to hating as I can muster. If anyone was worse than Hitler, it was Stalin.

Herb

distrust and disdain that many liberals feel for Bush. And you have called *that* Hate

---and---

I GREATLY distrust Mrs. Clinton and earnestly try not to hate anyone.


...and that was my point --thanks for engaging on that.

It's way too easy to just marginalize one another with the hate word. It's actually really difficult to just hate something blindly. That's a primal thing, best left alone, IMHO.

"I have no idea who Obama really is, but he is against the war now (and at least never voted for it) and he seems to infuriate the right people. Obama is a perfect mirror of the society he was born to conquer, and his journey upward throws everyone he passes into stark, humorous relief. Whether I'll vote for him is another story. But he's certainly helping make it clear who shouldn't get my vote."

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/48051/

I think this article is very good and might reflect how a lot of us feel right now. I am just not sure yet, but I am willing to watch.

Leaked "1/2 hour news hour" clip, produced by FOX in response to "the daily show".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjIfaMwIFxU&eurl=

Somebody there does not get it --at all.

This is here because of the Obama content (again).

Missing, I guess that is what the right finds funny these days. The racism could have been a little more subtle, but I have come to expect that from the feral puppy network. Perhaps, someday, an American will steer that leaky vessel. I start the bidding at one dollar. We'll send the check to Rupert after the auction.

Herb...
Your the one that uses the word HATE all the time when pointing out that we bash DUHbya...

And more from the Fair and Balanced FOX News:

http://foxattacks.com/

Watch the video, it's golden!

That channel is no doubt the most lame excuse for journalism this planet has seen. They make Hearst look like a softy. Oh, the money those pathetic racist pigs would pay for a picture of Barak eating a watermelon.

Still no bids on Fox news? Okay, I'll throw in the Simpsons too, do I hear a dollar? One-dollar-dollar-dollar-lemme-hear-a-bid-a dollar-just-a-dollar-you-sir-how-about-it? Just one-dollar-for-this-fine-fine-network-do-I-hear-dollar?

FAUXNews at it's best!

Fair and Balanced my Fin ass......

OUTRAGEOUS!

If anyone watches FAUXNews after this they really are IGNORANT!

And your problem is, Fox reporting Obama was raised as a Muslum, or he was a cigarette smoker?
What they should be reporting is his ties to the Daley organization, and the fact hes never done anything.

It's more general than that.

My problem with FOX is they are not being even remotely honest in how they position their news programming period.

It's not fair and balanced, it's not news you can trust, it's not often that accurate, and it's not authoritative.

It is entertaining, it is well produced, etc...

As far to the right as Fox is, CNN is equally that far to the left.

But I'm sure that no one here would acknowledge that.

That's why they have the nickname Communist News Network.

The lefties see CNN as being fair and balanced and the righties see Fox and being fair and balanced.

Most likely neither is fair and balanced and the truth lies somewhere in between.

It all depends on where you stand and your perception of each.

" As far to the right as Fox is, CNN is equally that far to the left. But I'm sure that no one here would acknowledge that. "

I would. But you have to ask me nicely.

Also, it's hard to remember back to very much before 9/11. But, they went really hard after Clinton while he was in office. The difference is that Fox doesn't go that hard after Bush. They defend him. And that is frustrating to those who remember how " balanced " it was during the Clinton years. Now I just feel silly for wasting my time spurring CNN on about Lewinsky. It just pales compared to how I feel now. If I thought they treated Bush the way I feel he deserves to get treated, I'd be all over Fox with applause about the face and head.

And I would sacrifice anyone on CNN to see O Reilly get sacrificed. NO problem.

Mr. O'Reilly exposes the hypocrisy of the left.

Why would you have a problem with that?

Herb

"It all depends on where you stand and your perception of each."

Before the first Gulf War, I did a remote recording of a lecture from a well known visiting journalist who spoke at Portland State University. I heard him articulate a vision of impending doom in the Middle East with interest, but soon, with more than a little skepticism. He did not give the all too familiar adrenalin and fear vibe of a concerned veteran newspaperman with a scary scoop. In fact, before long, I began to wonder why he seemed so confident that all this would come to pass.

He was polite in person with a firm handshake and quite friendly. He did not seem to perspire. Among most of the crowd, he seemed to already have some starpower. I sensed he was being groomed for something. To further prove my suspicions, his lecture was one of the easiest I had ever edited for broadcast. This gentleman was widely respected and had worked for the Jerusalem Post for years. His name was, Wolf Blitzer.

Once upon a time, we had a news network owned almost solely by a tycoon, not Rupert Murdoch, but an American fellow named, Ted Turner. It was called CNN. During Desert Storm, they were given a monopoly on coverage in exchange for towing the line for the Big Shrub. Coincidentally, Wolf Blitzer sat up in the big chair under the lights throughout the conflict. He had arrived just in time to be a superstar. During the military operation, everything was censored on the Cable News Network to serve the controllers of public opinion in the United States.

The reason, of course, was that Saddam could get his tactical information from a network in Georgia, that had sometimes comically bad coverage, of Georgia. This, of course, was baloney. Not even good deli style bologna, but a plastic bag of putrid wiggle meat. By tossing truth aside and leaving us all in the dark, Ted got richer and Wolf became a wealthy household word.

My boss at the time -- someone I am sure a few of you know -- was getting raw feeds, like anyone else who knew anything about satellite television. What he saw and described to me was a nightmare. Chinese built troop carriers full of Iraqis that had been hit with a fuel air bomb ended up looking like a melted beer keg full of scorched kittens. Some of our own boys got hurt badly and some paid the ultimate price. Unspeakable carnage was carried out on civilians. Nothing in the raw feed ever indicated where our troops were, but it demonstrated the costs of war on all sides.

The first conflict was also cooked up, by and large, and carefully orchestrated to look legitimate. A familiar scenario now, but very new to the New World Order at the time. The truth is, that administration showed the Saudi Arabians photos of non-existent tank tracks, speculated about Iraqi troop movements and scared them into some cooperation. Next, the administration essentially called Saddam up and told him that Kuwait was his for the taking, something that had been implied even before the conflict. Then, we sat waiting for him to take the bait.

We saw two of our greatest American Generals in action, and we used first, then later saved, a tiny despotic kingdom. This gave the U.S. bases on the peninsula. Simply put, the only reason the Saudis gave us permanent bases was the war, and the war was started to get those permanent bases. Big Shrub called the shots, controlled what we knew, and we all had to watch watered down tripe. The carefully framed and largely insignificant "insights" from Blitzer were broken up by spots that included the infamous Pillsbury "orgasm rolls" advertisement.

The only reason that Fox makes me so angry is CNN. We have so little real news left it is pathetic. Both networks should shoulder blame for being manipulated and distorted. High tech puppetry at it's finest is not any way to be a news source. Get your shoes dirty, get us all the who, what, where, when, why and how -- even if you get your nose broken. Give us the facts and meet your deadline, because it is your job. This is America, not Advertisica or Administratica.

Dammit all, we gotta reanimate Murrow. I bet he would have a great one on one interview with any candidate that sat down for a chat. He would treat Obama like a man. Fox still thinks Barak is a performer in a minstrel show and ought to know better. For chrissakes, it is 2007. :0)

My problem with Orielly is he does expose the left, and that's fine. Honestly, somebody has to do it.

But, he does so with considerable hypocracy of his own, combined with low brow attempts at intimidation, and less than stellar ethics where matters of fact and reason are concerned.

In short, he presents as somehow authoritative (actually him and Lars are quite similar in this regard), but clearly is not for the reasons listed above.

This is obvious to any critical thinker, regardless of ideology and or political bent.

Having said that, I'm often quite entertained with Oreilly! On that basis, he's great.

"Mr. O'Reilly exposes the hypocrisy of the left.

Why would you have a problem with that?"

I don't. You make it sound like I do. Do I?

"Mr. O'Reilly exposes the hypocrisy" would make him a broadcast journalist. His slant makes him a television entertainer with an opinion.

"Mr. Moore exposes the hypocrisy" would make him a documentary journalist. His slant makes him a filmmaker with social commentary.

I also agree, both can be wickedly funny. Michael Moore does not discuss battery operated sex devices with his staff. Perhaps, that is why he seems so much more legitimate.

To my post:
Mr. O'Reilly exposes the hypocrisy of the left.
Why would you have a problem with that?

You response was:
"I don't. You make it sound like I do. Do I?"


Oh really? Then why did you post this:

"And I would sacrifice anyone on CNN to see
O Reilly get sacrificed."

Herb

Because it's not the exposing hypocrisy of the left with which I have a problem.

But thanks for playing.

Then I'm going to flip all the cards and ask,
'Why do you dislike Mr. O'Reilly so much?'

Herb

Because he is rude, condescending, too proud, has too big of an ego and just a general dick.

CJ, who is better at getting at the truth?

"Because he is rude, condescending, too proud, has too big of an ego and just a general dick."

That describes Thom Hartmann

Can you give a specific example of Thom Hartmann being any of these things, DD? Unlike Bill O'Reilly, Hartmann lets people who disagree with him on his show all the time, unedited. Greg Clapper has been on the show several times now for a full hour, in studio, given almost equal time with Hartmann. Do you think Bill O'Reilly would do that with a liberal talk show host? Not a chance in hell.

Andrew

Bill: You are rude!

Thom: I know you are but what am I?

Bill: You are condescending!

Thom: I know you are but what am I?

Bill: You are too proud and have a big ego!

Thom: I know you are but what am I?

Bill: You are a dick.

Thom, Bill: I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I?...

Thom: Infinity!

Bill: No, I'm not. Shut up, Thom!

Thom: Why don't you make me.

Bill: You make me!

Thom: Because. I don't make monkeys, I just train 'em.



(sorry, had to do it - P.W.H.)

>>>"Do you think Bill O'Reilly would do that with a liberal talk show host?"

Yes.

(He doesn't let anyone on for a full hour, however)

When has O'Reilly ever done that (radio show, I mean)? Just curious. TV show doesn't count since O'Reilly controls the content in editing.

Andrew

Is Mr. O'Reilly arrogant and pompous?

Probably.

Does he look out for families, the unborn and people of faith more than Mr. Hartman?

Definitely.

Herb

Do you know what Mr. Hartman does??? Are you sure he does less than Mr. oLIEly???

Herb asked, "Does he look out for families... and people of faith...?"

Bill O'Reilly, champion of morality and family values:

"Defendant O'Reilly informed the Plaintiff that he was watching a porn movie and babbled perversely... "So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard..."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html

"He suggested that the plaintiff purchase a vibrator and name it... After he climaxed, Defendant O'Reilly said to Plaintiff: "I appreciate the fun phone call..."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris14.html

"O'Reilly repeated propositioned the women, singing the praises of telephone sex... suggesting that the three of them "go to a hotel together..."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris9.html

I left out the really dirty stuff in the transcript, go ahead, see for yourself. O'Reilly is a sleazeball. He likes to play spin doctor all day and spin the doctor all night. :o)

Whatever you think of Clinton, he didn't have to grovel, beg, harass or chase Monica. She saw what she wanted, gave him those eyes and went for it. I guess that is just the breaks, some Bills you win, some Bills, well, you lose.

This would have nothing to do with Obama except that O'Reilly loves the beach photos of Barak so much, perhaps, too much.

"CJ, who is better at getting at the truth?"

What are my choices?

Littlesongs, like many district attorney's say: They could indict a ham sandwich if they want to. What you're quoting is he-said, she-said hearsay.

You imply how fine Mr. Clinton is. However, unlike Mr. Clinton, but just like Mr. Nixon, Bill O'Reilly was never convicted in a COURT of law.

Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, was not only impeached, but he was prohibited from PRACTICING law.

I freely admit Mr. O'Reilly has a large ego. However, I said Mr. O'Reilly LOOKED OUT FOR families, the unborn and people of faith. I never said Mr. O'Reilly was a saint.

Like it or not, you have little but rumour and innuendo to work with on this one.

Herb

Did O'Reilly ever deny any of the allegations, Herb? You know that the woman in this case had tapes of his voice, right? If she hadn't had them, presumably O'Reilly would have had no need to settle with her - because it was all made up, right?

Do you think O'Reilly's "erotic" novel is the kind of thing a family man ought to be publishing?

Andrew

Like you say, give us the facts. If he's convicted, throw the book at him.

It's strange how you get so excited about Mr. O'Reilly based upon hearsay evidence, yet when it comes to a colossal baddie like Marc Rich whom Mr. Clinton pardoned, you're silent.

Herb

If you want to hold up model of morality for America's children to look up to, Bill Clinton may not be it, but Bill O'Reilly sure as hell isn't, either, Herb.

Andrew

We don't disagree.

Herb

Herb, I am quoting sworn affidavits that were used to settle the case for over two million dollars. Andrew is right, if you want to read them, they have transcribed calls. These are word for word accounts of his lechery that he chose to keep out of the public record. You wouldn't want old Billy boy to have to register as a sex offender would you?

The Plaintiff wasn't some eraser chewing intern, she was a television producer for a (somewhat pathetic) national network. Innocent people don't settle, they fight with all the resources that they can muster. He settled because he was exhibiting a pattern of behavior that -- in hushed whispered circles -- was thought to be happening during his time here in Portland. I am not throwing stones for the exercise. I am also aware that nobody is a saint. Still, one can at least try to live by good deeds, thoughts and actions. He is just not a good man. Plain and simple. The two million might have been a bargain.

>>>"What are my choices?"


The field is wide open CJ. Choose from anyone you want to.

You lose me here: "I am quoting sworn affidavits..."

You mean sworn affidavits like those made by serial perjurers John Dean and Mr. Clinton?

Just because someone says it in a court document, doesn't make it true. Like district attorneys say, they can indict a ham-fisted sandwich.

If Mr. O'Reilly indeed said those things, and he may very well have, then I don't defend him on it. Personally, while I am against any kind of sexual harassment, if she agreed to settle and received 2 million, she's been well compensated for whatever dastardly deed he's done. Victims from abortions and other murder cases get far less than that.

Herb

You can be sure there was more motivation to her accusations than appears in any court affidavits. I have no doubt he probably did what he's accused of. So what. He paid. Don't liberals ever get horny? I know one that did.

It's too bad that you think "get[ing] horny" is the same as harassing someone at work, Deane. It shouldn't be OK to harass a subordinate at work and be able to simply pay to get out of it. That doesn't make it right.

Andrew

The point is, she got 2 Million for harassment.

She got her justice.

Now, democrats appear to be the only ones who feel this is still an issue worth re-hashing yet again.

Could it be merely political on the part of the left?

Nawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Herb

It's a shame you too think harassment is OK as long as the victim gets paid. For O'Reilly, $2M is pocket change. It didn't hurt his career in the least. What's the incentive for him not to do it again?

The real message here: if you're rich, you can get away with it.

Andrew

This harassment thing is completely out of control in this country.

I suspect $2 million was far more of an incentive to start screaming than harassment was. We used to call these gold diggers.

"CJ, who is better at getting at the truth?"

>>>"What are my choices?"

The field is wide open CJ. Choose from anyone you want to.

OK - truth. Truth. Who is the best at getting at the truth? Hmmm.

Lou Dobbs.

"It's a shame you too think harassment is OK as long as the victim gets paid."

Again, here's what I said:

"If Mr. O'Reilly indeed said those things, and he may very well have, then I don't defend him on it. Personally, while I am against any kind of sexual harassment, if she agreed to settle and received 2 million, she's been well compensated for whatever dastardly deed he's done. Victims from abortions and other murder cases get far less than that."

Now since our legal system is arranged to 'make a person whole again' by remuneration like this and since she's therefore 'been made whole,' I feel like justice is served. Based on the fact that you won't let justice served be enough, you apparently feel it's ok to continue to go after the guy. When is enough enough? He paid his dues. What's the matter-redemption is ok only for democrats?

Herb

"When is enough enough? He paid his dues."

But you keep right on going after Clinton. When is enough enough? :-)

Andrew

My point EXACTLY. You won't lay off Mr. O'Reilly who never pardoned Marc Rich, never lied under oath, never was impeached, never lost a license to practice law.

Yet you continue to defend the indefensible acts of a dishonest [that's putting it mildly] politician like Mr. Clinton.

Herb

When I have ever defended the "indefensible acts" of Bill Clinton? Ever? Specific example, please?

Andrew

>>>"Lou Dobbs."


I will be required to accept your word for it. I never watch Lou Dobbs. What network is he on?

"When I have ever defended the "indefensible acts" of Bill Clinton?"

I'll spare myself from wading through this board and take your word on it.

Herb

Lou Dobbs is on the Commie News Network - duh!

Andrew

Alright, now that we have settled up the difference between a workplace molester and an unfaithful husband, can we perhaps check in on Barak Obama?

Here is a solid piece of legislation he introduced a few days ago:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070220-obama_mccaskill_to_introduce_legislation_th at_would_improve_conditions_at_active_duty_military_hospitals/index.html

Here is a running tally of his voting record:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

Herb said>>>
You imply how fine Mr. Clinton is. However, unlike Mr. Clinton, but just like Mr. Nixon, Bill O'Reilly was never convicted in a COURT of law.

So that just makes O'LIEly a common everyday DIRTBAG....

"So that just makes O'LIEly a common everyday DIRTBAG...."

You're pretty quick on the ad hominem attacks about an unconvicted Republican. Then what does that make Mr. Clinton?

Herb

A retired President.

Hey DD, remember when you said:

"I think Thom Hartman is brilliant. He supports single pay healthcare."

Is he smart, in addition to the attributes you identify above? Just wondering.

O'reilly is a buffoon. Entertainment only, not good for anything else. One aspect of this entertainment is to get a feel for what is running in the news cycle. Another is him reminding everybody that he thinks his pair is so big, he has to have a special chair to sit in. There are other things, of course.

If he were actually authoritative in any serious way, he would not be having to use the aggressive call screening, mike cutting, "FOX Security intimidation", etc...

The fact that he does these things is all we really need to know.

Re: "truthful"

Keith Olberman.

He wipes the floor with nearly everybody where truth in reporting is concerned. Not only does he frequently nail the issues and their implications, but he does so on a well produced show that is consistant and entertaining.

Supporting this guy is in the same league as supporting the Resident. He's good for whatever issue you've got burning at you, and that's it.

And look at Obama! He's actually addressing a big issue with veterans. It's flat out criminal to see our military used up so totally and completely that our post theatre care costs are going through the roof. Nice to see somebody actually working hard at keeping the focus on what matters, instead of how much worse the other guys are by comparison.

I am with you there Missing, I like and respect Keith Olberman. His agenda is old school: Find as many facts as I can before the deadline, fit in as much information as I can into the time frame, and do my best to make sense to the folks tuned in.

The proposal from Obama gives me a bit of hope. No reasonable person can approach war without considering the long term costs for men and women. It is foolish enough to think it doesn't take most of a nation's money. There is nothing to be gained in war, only something to be defended, otherwise, it is truly not a war we ought to fight. I think that is why he is stepping forward rather than getting bogged down in the petty bickering.

A war can end, but still be an endless battle for the veterans. Providing our returning troops with the best medical care in the world is our nation's duty. By making this proposal, he simply makes his job easier if he is to win and shows solidarity with buck private, sergeant and brass alike. Obama certainly recognizes that it was the slot machine mentality that drove the bus under Rummy. It went on for years until our Generals finally stopped muttering and started yelling. Barak could gain a great deal of trust by showing all members of the military that he is in their corner. The last President with a morale situation this critical in a post-war environment was obviously, Jimmy Carter.

In some ways, this military has an even bigger mess than it did after Vietnam. The next President will have to root out all of those who believe our battles ought to be fought outside the law by less than our best men and women. The current practices of recruiting violent convicted felons and young folks with less than a high school education and sub contracting combat operations to private mercenaries will have to cease. There must be no further use of torture by members of our miltary or affiliated bodies. A transparent method of financial oversight is going to have to put into place for all but the most secret of programs.

These kinds of reforms will not be easy. Obama -- or any other winning nominee -- would be well served by Colin Powell as Secretary of Defense. It would be prudent to return him to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but I like him hands-on at the Pentagon. He is one of the few senior officials who have any credibility left with our Armed Forces. He would be instrumental in making a postwar Pentagon accountable for recent mistakes, current challenges and future solutions.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13559914/the_most_honest_man_in_news

Read it all.

Please, that is.

Herb...
It makes Clinton Slick Willy.......

"However, I said Mr. O'Reilly LOOKED OUT FOR families, the unborn and people of faith."

Herb, even the capitals were appropriate to describe him, although I would include the cops, scout troops and truck drivers.

He LOOKED OUT FOR everyone while he was entertaining himself and talking with his producer from the cell phone in his car. (Or hiding in the bushes or rubbing one out in the elevator or...)

Sometimes his concentration was broken by a song on the radio that infuriated him. He thought of all the men out there, being nice, holding doors and having conversations. Oh, how he hated all that chitter-chat, flowers and foreplay.

He knows that his personality will never make his van sway. He can't hold an audience without a multi-million dollar production facility. He tucks his dinky deacon into his pants, zips back up and slams down his phone. Damn those gentlemen. Damn those gentle men! And still... Roger Miller keeps singing...

"I hear tell you’re doin’ well,
Good things have come to you.
I wish I had your happiness
And you had a do-wacka-do,
Wacka do, wacka-do, wacka-do.

They tell me you’re runnin’ free,
Your days are never blue.
I wish I had your good-luck charm
And you had a do-wacka-do,
Wacka do, wacka-do, wacka-do.

Yeah, I see you’re goin’ down the street in your big Cadillac,
You got girls in the front, you got girls in the back,
Yeah, way in back, you got money in a sack,
Both hands on the wheel and your shoulders rared back
root-doot-doot-doot-doot, do-wah,

I hear tell you’re doin’ well,
Good things have come to you.
I wish I had your happiness
And you had a do-wacka-do,
Wacka do, wacka-do, wacka-do.

Yeah, I see you’re goin’ down the street in your big Cadillac,
You got girls in the front, you got girls in the back,
Yeah, way in back, you got money in a sack,
Both hands on the wheel and your shoulders rared back
root-doot-doot-doot-doot, do-wah,

I hear tell you’re doin’ well,
Good things have come to you.
I wish I had your good-luck charm
And you had a do-wacka-do,
Wacka do, wacka-do, wacka-do."

Yes, in some karmic way, we can hope that the insightful author of "Kansas City Star" has found a way to torture Bill O'Reilly.

Now, scroll back up, and click on the Olberman article CJ got for us from Rolling Stone, please. KO is a great sportscaster and has become one helluva journalist. If you aren't familiar with him, the clips will bring you up to speed. He is also on the "Dan Patrick Show" on ESPN -- heard weekdays at noon on 1080 AM.

No thanks. I've watched enough of Mr. Olbermann to know he's a hyper-partisan, secular progressive who specializes in journalistic hit pieces.

It's no surprise he's popular on this Bush-bashing board.

Herb

But are they not true?

Herb said - " No thanks."

LOL. Okay. That's a weak thing to do. Spiral on.

Mention a journalist with integrity -- who happens to be a flag waving Constitution-hugger, an expert on our national pastime and a brilliant orator -- and the roaches scurry. Clicky-scrickly-click-click-clicky.

I hope Obama has a nice day today. It looks like he is going to enjoy the company of the wonderful folks in Cleveland, Ohio. I'll bet it is chilly, with a wind coming off of the lake. Thank heavens, those doggone Democrats always have hot cocoa. I'll bet they even have marshmallows in liberal amounts.

Nwokie said - "Obama has absoilty no chance"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/05/schneider.money/index.html

Maybe you meant no chance to be a professional hockey player.

I would take that " out " if I were you.

Really? Absoilty NO chance?

OK.

He might beat clinton, but he cant win the national election, he wont take 1 "red" state.
Giving Obama the nomination, is like handing the election to the republicans. Not that the demos have much of a chance anyway.

OK. Why do you think he has " NO " chance?

Obama can win the general election if nominated by winning every state John Kerry won in 2004 plus Ohio. And John Kerry lost Ohio by only about 120,000 votes. Do you think Ohio's huge urban black populations will come out to vote a little more enthusiastically for Obama than they did for rich white boy John Kerry? Me too.

Andrew

...just a little.

And maybe this time, we won't have 6 hour lines!

I saw Obama's wife on 60 Minutes. What a cool lady! I'd love to see her as First Lady.

I wasn't impressed with DLC Obama until recently. He seems to be taking a "Move On" type of approach, humbly asking the people, what is it that we really want in a leader.

The DLC thing still keeps me on the fence though.