I, for one, certainly wish Omama would stick to the issues and stop talking about healthcare, war, peace, the economy, and John McCain. There are bigger issues at hand.
He needs to be seen as the candidate you want to have a shot and a beer with. The candidate you want to run from sniper fire with. The candidate who wants to nuke Iran. The candidate of god and guns. You know what I mean. The kind of candidate republi-cons support with glee and undying devotion based purely on surface level characteristics. If only Obama could understand that Hillarian = Republi-con he could change his campaign to accomodate the libera...uh, activis...uh, progressi...uh, grassroo...uh...uh...uh, centrists. Yes, that's it. Centrists.
Posted by phidipides at April 26, 2008 09:37 AM"...to see Sen. Obama continue a quaint little quest for reality in the campaign".
So much for your neutrality and unbiased analysis. I guess I must have missed your adherence to the stance of eriposte and Turkana who "don't have a candidate". Yeah right...
Also from the article you referenced:
"In the speech, Obama called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies, with the money used to help consumers pay utility bills. He also said middle-class tax breaks he has proposed would help families with energy costs".
How the hell did Steve Soto let this site get so one-sided?
had to fix your sentence: "...and an opposition party run amok on fear, HATE and lying...."
wow, paradox can't write something that was, at worst/best (depending on your point of view), even remotely positive towards Obama without the like of tfitznc screaming bloody murder
Posted by gay veteran at April 26, 2008 10:08 AMWe will never willingly cut down the Pentagon because both parties believe in American exceptionalism. Reality will have to do the job for us as the country slides into bankruptcy.
Posted by gay veteran at April 26, 2008 10:09 AMObama has no moral high groound from which to be complaining about anybody not being up front with the voters. I have yet to see a campaign ad from his campaign that did not have at least one documentable lie in it.
Posted by jwrjr at April 26, 2008 10:58 AM"Clinton or Obama will win the general election...."
One of three people will, most likely, become the next President of the United States:
Person 1 served in local office for many years and then secured state-wide office before, against any substantial opposition, being elected to the US Senate where he has served less than one term. During this less than one term, person 1, has spent half of his time campaigning to become President. Person 1 promotes his time living in Indonesia -- prior to his teenage years -- and a short visit to Pakistan, as evidence of his experience in foreign policy. This person also spent 20 years in the company of his spiritual advisor: a bitter old man employing his religious garb to excoriate the United States for ficticious transgressions, and also preaching the divisiveness of "Black Liberation Theology" (but person 1 claims to be a "uniter"). Person 1 has never served in the military, but claims an intimate knowledge of the strategy that should be employed, viz the US Military, to keep the country safe. He may or may not be able to distinguish between the uniforms of the various branches of the military services, but is probably unsure of the mission associated with each of the services. His claim to be President of the United States is that he can make change. Change and hope: please, sir, please explain what change will be made and then why the electorate should hope for this change?
Person 2 never served in elected office until becoming a member of the US Senate from a state where she -- for the first time -- became a homeowner a couple of months prior to the election (until then, having most always, as an adult, lived in state or federally supported housing). She has served less than two terms in the Senate and spent most of her first term preparing to run for President of the United States. She has spent most of her second term campaigning to become President. She has never been in the military, but does say that the United States Marine Corps once denied her an opportunity to go through the abridged "boot-camp" that is necessary to become a JAG Junior Officer. She is able to determine that a person is in a military uniform, but unlikely to be able to ascertain which branch of service (...but then again, it may just be the doorman). Her great claim to becoming President of the United States is her experience as First Lady -- a ceremonial role, except for the time she was dodging sniper fire in Tuzla (part of the ex-Yugoslavia).
Person 3 has served in the House and the Senate for the past ~20 years. Person 3 was engaged in the back-and-forth debate associated with governing the United States when person 1 was in college and person 2 was the First Lady of a beautiful, but rather under-populated Southern State (...cattle futures were quite good, though). Person 3 has engaged in substantiative discussions with government and social leaders from around the world. This person has served in the military, and did live in the Capitol of a South-East Asian nation for several years when he was in his early thirties (although, as it is understood in the popular culture, his living conditions were rather spartan). Person 3 claims that it is his experience that makes him best suited to be President of the United States.
Given these three individuals, who appear to be seeking the Presidency based upon their experience in the Senate and their international involvement, how can it be that that person 1 or person 2 is more qualified than person 3 to be President of the United States of American.
Lacking this qualification, it is very, very unlikely that Clinton or Obama will be elected to the Presidency in November.
(Please children, no references to the current President: he is not running for office in the next election.)
Posted by Bagley at April 26, 2008 11:01 AMPerson 3 claims that it is his experience that makes him best suited to be President of the United States.
Because person 3 is a delusional doddering old fuck who was tortured to the point of insanity. Thanking him for his service does not equate to giving him the Presidency.
Posted by phidipides at April 26, 2008 11:15 AM"Because person 3 is a delusional doddering old fuck who was tortured to the point of insanity."
phidipides,
Your postings are always so thoughtful, contemplative, and insightful.
Posted by Bagley at April 26, 2008 11:18 AM"Because person 3 is a delusional doddering old fuck who was tortured to the point of insanity."
...Might be fun to watch President Pie-fight visit the Supreme Court, mistake the black silk clad characters for the Cong and go postal on Scalia and Thomas.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 26, 2008 11:38 AMHow the hell did Steve Soto let this site get so one-sided?
It's not. You only have to scroll to the big discussion on Moyer's Wright interview and Clyburn's comments. They are good ones, I assure you....they really are........
Your postings are always so thoughtful, contemplative, and insightful.
Thanks!
Posted by phidipides at April 26, 2008 11:45 AMGay Veteran,
Not sure where exactly you are coming from.
I was responding to Paradox' characterizations of Obama's "...quaint little quest for reality in the campaign"; and "...this cute little insistence by Senator Obama".
Sounds patronizing to me, and I don't appreciate it.
Posted by tfitznc at April 26, 2008 03:33 PMsorry tfitznc, I misunderstood what you wrote