U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[PanzerJaeger]

How many lies has he been caught out on recently?

Oh and breaking Godwin's law on the second page - I think that's pretty bad...

NAFTA anyone? Or we could chronicle the many positions he took over his racist, anti-american spiritual mentor of 20 years.

[Lemur]

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?

Dear Panzer, if I thought you were seriously considering Obama as a candidate, I would happily discuss him. However, I get the decided impression you're more of the "terrorist fist-bump" crowd, so no, there's no basis for discussing the dude with you. I think we could more productively talk about whether or not you can tolerate McCain.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama responds to a question on how his Veep search guy has shady connections to a firm Obama has lambasted:

ABC News' Sunlen Miller today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, how he could "rail against Countrywide Financial Corp as an example of insiders and today's economy while your VP search is headed by someone who got questionable loans from Countrywide?" (This is an issue we wrote about earlier today.)

"And in addition," Miller continued, "another person on that same VP search team – Eric Holder -- has also been involved in the Marc Rich scandal."

"Well, look," Obama said, "the, the, I mean - first of all I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages, so you’re gong to have to direct -- "

"But shouldn’t you?" asked Miller.

"Well, no," Obama said. "It becomes sort of a, um, I mean, this is a game that can be played - everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships -- I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters. I mean, at some point, you know, we just asked people to do their assignments.

"Jim Johnson has a very discrete task," Obama continued, "as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They are performing that job well, it’s a volunteer, unpaid position. And they are giving me information and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate.

"So this – you know, these aren’t folks who are working for me," Obama said. "They're not people you know who I have assigned to a job in a future administration and, you know, ultimately my assumption is that, you know, this is a discreet task that they're going to performing for me over the next two months."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-answer-o.html

Eloquent, that. I still think Bill Clinton was better at deflecting questions.

CR

[Proletariat]

Explain it to everyone else then, Leemy. Hearing how stupid the fringe right sounds is getting a little old. I'm curious too about what people really see in Obama, because I'm with SFTS so far.

[Lemur]

What, suddenly I'm Obama's spokesperson and defender? Not a job I want nor a job I will take, thanks very much. I will speak up and defend both McCain and Obama when I think they're being attacked unfairly, but even that is a matter of my mood and the phase of the moon.

No, I've been asked "Whut's so good about the dusky Muslim Marxist quisling traitor?" several times on this board, and I've gone in-depth twice, with absolutely nothing to reward me for my effort. No, Prole, if you're seriously curious about Obama there are ample resources online. And if you're in the mood to hear how evil he is, there are equally ample resources online.

I'm sorry you find my direct quotes of the right-wing echo chamber disturbing, but frankly, if they weren't so darn funny I wouldn't be quoting them. Comedy gold coming out of the right at the moment. I expect that will change as the attacks become more focused and less hysterical, but for the moment we have what we have.

-edit-

Here's a rigorous ranking of conservative/liberal votes in the 109th and 110th Congress, giving a more realistic picture of just how Obama and McCain score. Just a little reality check after the broad trumpeting of National Review's highly suspect numbers.

Voteview uses an extremely rigorous methodology for ordering Senators from most liberal to most conservative which to my mind produces some fairly intuitive results. (Five most liberal senators thus far this year? Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehose, and Ted Kennedy).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Explain it to everyone else then, Leemy. Hearing how stupid the fringe right sounds is getting a little old. I'm curious too about what people really see in Obama, because I'm with SFTS so far.

What? That Obama has a progressive platform and promises change? You right wing guys keep jumping out and exclaiming "Hah! See! Obama is actually a liberal" when the point is that we want a liberal. Are you more impressed with McCain's "Maverick" persona?

[Xiahou]

Obama responds to a question on how his Veep search guy has shady connections to a firm Obama has lambasted:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-answer-o.html

Eloquent, that. I still think Bill Clinton was better at deflecting questions.

CR

I know all politicians are hypocrites, but even with that knowledge, Obama still makes me cringe. It's like his principled stand against wearing flag lapel pins that lasted just until his handlers told him wearing one would play better with the masses. When he went to speak to an Israeli American group he even went further, wearing a dual Israeli/American flag.


Onto McCain- Does the fact that he carried on affairs and divorced his wife after returning to the US make a difference? As a character issue, it's worth keeping in mind- but it was also long enough ago that it doesn't figure in too prominently in my book. However, it's also worth mentioning that without his new young wife, McCain would've never even made it into politics as it was her family riches that allowed him to get started. Really though, there are many better reasons for me not to support him.

At this point, I know I won't be voting for Obama and I have serious doubts about voting for McCain. But, DD even if you won't be voting for McCain, vote for a third party- maybe with enough votes, one of them will gain some legitimacy. Or just maybe the GOP will get the hint.

"Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administrationNewt Gingrich as a total failure," said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich's political organization.

That also applies.

“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable," Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. "It will take generations to recover. I don't know how long; maybe never."

The GOP congress had itself to blame more than Bush. He could've/should've vetoed more of their pork laden bills, but they're to blame for coming up with them in the first place.

[Proletariat]

Alright, forget I asked. Let's just tee off on irrelevant but entertaining blips about fistpumps and middle names. You're making a fantastic contribution to the 'commentary' half of the thread.

I hardly post back here anymore, but that doesn't mean my views are the same as they were three years ago. Right now I couldn't care less if the Republicans don't step foot in the White House for fifty years. My views are probably alot more in line with your's and Sasaki's, so you don't need to go ultra defensive over me asking why you like Obama. 'Go look up Obama' and 'what, you like McCain more?' isn't exactly what I was expecting, but thanks anyway.

[PanzerJaeger]

Dear Panzer, if I thought you were seriously considering Obama as a candidate, I would happily discuss him. However, I get the decided impression you're more of the "terrorist fist-bump" crowd, so no, there's no basis for discussing the dude with you. I think we could more productively talk about whether or not you can tolerate McCain.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

Obama is constantly lauded, but no one will step forward with specifics.

What? That Obama has a progressive platform and promises change? You right wing guys keep jumping out and exclaiming "Hah! See! Obama is actually a liberal" when the point is that we want a liberal. Are you more impressed with McCain's "Maverick" persona?

If you wanted a liberal, you had the most qualified one availble. My guess is that hope and change sound good to you, regardless of what that truly entails.

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?

[Lemur]

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?

Oh good lord, you ain't gonna let it go, are you? Okay, deep breath, let's do this again:

What's the largest operation these men (and woman) wanting to be Prez have run? That's right, their campaigns. Last check Obama's consisted of 700+ people.

So take a look at how effective they've been at managing this operation. Take a cold, hard, calculating look. If you don't see something interesting in that picture, let me know.

On the same theme, note that Obama has done something no Republican ever managed: he defeated the Clintons in a contested election. A notable feat, surely.

Look, if you're absolutely convinced that Obama is a socialist/leftist/euro-liberal who will turn the U.S.A. into a police state that takes away guns and God, then there's just no talking to you. Your'e a wacky right-wing nutjob who needs to buy more tinfoil.

If, on the other hand, you're willing to have your head infused with ideas, there's ample evidence that Obama is much more centrist than Fox News would have you believe. Example:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era. I think this perspective misreads the American people.

From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

Also, please note the link above to a more detailed and serious vote-ranking system which suggests that (shock!) Obama's voting record is not the most liberal in the known universe, a conclusion which will startle and alarm only the most entrenched partisan hacks.

I'll happily concede that his record of legislative accomplishments is not well-known, but I defy you to prove that they are nonexistent, or even trivial. Here's a breakdown of his votes in Illinois. Here are some firsthand accounts of his operations as a State Senator.

Note that Obama has typically tackled serious and un-sexy issues. You know, the kinds that nobody cares about until they blow up. This suggests a serious mind. Nuclear non-proliferation has been his specialty in the U.S. Senate, and it ain't bagged him any headlines, although we're all grateful for the work.

One of the biggest bills he pushed through in IL had to do with mandatory videotaping of police interrogations. Chicago Police were dead opposed to it initially, so Obama went to them, hat in hand, asked for their concerns, worked with them until they were happy, and in the end CP supported the bill. It was a big deal in Illinois, and it's meant a huge improvement for the Police. Massive drop in defendants claiming their confessions were beaten out of them. More bad guys in jail, less police time wasted. A typically non-sexy, serious issue that gets the man no press.

Anyway, blah blah blah. Let me know if any of this turns your head even slightly, or if I'm just making noise while you reload.

-edit-

Just to be absolutely clear, the reason I quoted that piece from Kos is that Obama is defending votes for a conservative Chief Justice to the most leftist crowd on the web. He is going directly against their inclinations, and to no obvious benefit for himself. In much the same way that he has spoken out against the interests of the Teachers' Union, once again to no obvious self-benefit. This is a guy who is willing to push back against the traditional leftist base. This is a good thing.

[seireikhaan]

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?

Well, one could argue that the very fact that he was able to create a political machine capable, in the span of a year, of defeating the infamous Clinton machine as a sign that he is a capable manager and directer.

[Devastatin Dave]

At this point, I know I won't be voting for Obama and I have serious doubts about voting for McCain. But, DD even if you won't be voting for McCain, vote for a third party- maybe with enough votes, one of them will gain some legitimacy. Or just maybe the GOP will get the hint.

:

Horse squeeze. Voting is a waste of valuable time, especially with these choices or a third party. There is no third party candidate to vote for. Bob Bahr? This guy is a loon like Ron Paul. I'm gonna go hang at the DMV a couple times a month to get use to this whole universal healthcare BS.

I will give Osama Bin Obama this: I hope he does win because were going to need someone who understands socialism and Marxism in order to run this country with all the great nanny state legislation that Old Bag San Fran Nan is creating. I always had a secret desire to suck on her fun bags, now I'll actually get to!!! Gradle to grave off the governments teet, yipeee!!! Thanks to the Democrat party (yes it is the Democat party, not the democratic party, these are about as close to democratic ideals as Kim Jung Ill playing in the NBA as a forward.)

[CountArach]

If, on the other hand, you're willing to have your head infused with ideas, there's ample evidence that Obama is much more centrist than Fox News would have you believe. Example:

And if you don't want a link to DailyKos (Which I understand), then look at this non-partisan site:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...ings-2007.html

It has taken the ratings given by various liberal groups to each senator based on their voting record and has averaged it out. Clinton is the 38th most liberal and Obama is the 42nd most liberal. McCain on the other hand is the 5th most conservative.

Now looking at the Conservative interest group ratings...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...ings-2007.html
McCain is the 39th most Conservative. Obama is 70th and Clinton is 78th.

[FactionHeir]

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

[CountArach]

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

I'd much rather a lack of voting record, than the voting record that McCain has. He spoke in favour of banning waterboarding... and then voted against the resolution banning it. Just one of many examples of where he has backtracked. All politicians do it.

[Lemur]

FactionHeir, you can debate the particulars of Obama's record as you like. I was specifically responding to Panzer's petulant rhetorical flourish of, "Somebody respond to me right now or I'm going to run around declaring that nobody can articulate any reason why Obama should be President."

Not that our resident fascist would ever vote for a Democrat, much less one who has attended a black church, which makes the whole exercise reek of pointlessness. Seriously, I'm done giving our local Obama-haters the "why." This is the third time I've done it, and there is never any substantive response, and there is never any indication that they've even read what I posted. It's just this reflexive barking of "there's no substance to the guy" and then silence when someone throws some substance up. I'm sick of it, and it's both intellectually lazy and dishonest.

I also note with amusement that I am never called upon to justify why I like McCain, nor any demand to prove why he is a decent choice for CIC. No, it's just Obama, and it's the same damn line of rhetoric every time, a song without variation.

[Odin]

*yawn*

Didnt Hillary get the nomination? Ah well, I was so looking forward to the swift boat crowd making a comeback. Short of Ms Obama getting caught on tape in a "whitey" rant let me go out on the limb here and predict that Obama wins!

Not only that but dems sweep to majority in both houses!

Republicans had a good 6 years of a majority and after it there's one quote from history that seems to be spot on.

"If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again."

Ronald Reagan

Belly ache all you want about liberals, but their rise to power is a result of a mamoth conservative failure, the sink in my bathroom has a mirror, does yours? Take a long look then flush.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

Maybe you should have looked this up first.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...i_n_81460.html

and:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Present Votes Are an Accepted Legislative Strategy in the Illinois Senate
January 21, 2008

Obama Was Praised for Standing Up on Tough Issues-- Because His Senate Seat Was Not Vulnerable, He Used His Position To Help More Vulnerable Senators Do The Right Thing. Zorn wrote, "Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes. [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A "Duck" Doesn't Understand How the Process Works. "There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a "duck." Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this] Hull argument: "I think it's not well-based…I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works." [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Criticizing Present Votes Indicates "You Don't Have A Great Understanding Of The Process." "'Criticizing Obama on the basis of 'present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process,' said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence." [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal – to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Obama Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes That Make Good Politics. The AP reported, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [AP, 9/9/04]

Senators Would Vote Present If They Had 'Unresolved Worries.' The State Journal-Register reported, "Sen. George Shadid, the Edwards Democrat who is pushing the legislation, promised Senate Education Committee members that he wouldn't move ahead with Senate Bill 368 'unless I can get a good consensus.'…Four committee members cited unresolved worries when they voted 'present' on the measure, which passed 7-0." [State Journal-Register, 2/27/03]

Alright, forget I asked. Let's just tee off on irrelevant but entertaining blips about fistpumps and middle names. You're making a fantastic contribution to the 'commentary' half of the thread.

I hardly post back here anymore, but that doesn't mean my views are the same as they were three years ago. Right now I couldn't care less if the Republicans don't step foot in the White House for fifty years. My views are probably alot more in line with your's and Sasaki's, so you don't need to go ultra defensive over me asking why you like Obama. 'Go look up Obama' and 'what, you like McCain more?' isn't exactly what I was expecting, but thanks anyway.

When you start with "obama is an empty suit and a liar" don't complain when you get back irrelevancies. It's really the only appropriate response, besides a link to www.google.com

[Lemur]

A li'l something to make TuffStuff happy:

The buzz is growing around the possibility of Mitt Romney landing on the ticket with GOP presidential contender John McCain, and one of the voices backing such a move is Romney’s predecessor as Bay State governor, Paul Cellucci.

“Certainly Mitt Romney is on the short list, and he should be,” said Cellucci, who originally supported New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the presidential sweepstakes.

McCain gave his most ringing endorsement yet of Romney’s chances of being tapped as his vice presidential candidate during a fund-raiser Monday, saying, “There’s nobody who represents me better today than Mitt Romney.”

Cellucci says Romney, whose own White House hopes were dashed by McCain during the GOP primaries, is “a proven vote getter.”

“He won a lot of primaries and, let’s face it, anyone who can win in Massachusetts has got to be considered pretty good,” the former Republican governor said.

[FactionHeir]

Sasaki:
As the pieces you quoted say, he may not have been in a contested seat in his own legislature, but it is also questionable what kind of strategy his present votes really were if he was the only one or one of very few lawmakers to vote present on 36 bills.
I mean if a bill is passed unanimously and you sponsor it but end up being the lone present vote, is he trying to stand out or did he change his mind about his own legislation? Or was he influenced by some group?

One then can take this argument further and say: Well, his Illinois state senate seat was not contested, but this "present" voting "strategy" can be considered being not supportive of any one issue and therefore more difficult to attack (he can say he voted present rather than against or for a critical issue) when he then went on to vie for the US Senate seat of Illinois.

Then again, as per your citation 'Obama Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes That Make Good Politics. The AP reported, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [AP, 9/9/04]'
Why did he not vote it down if he found it unconstitutional? Was he afraid of taking a stand then? Being the lone present voter when the rest are willing to take a stand strikes me as rather odd.

[Proletariat]

When you start with "obama is an empty suit and a liar" don't complain when you get back irrelevancies. It's really the only appropriate response, besides a link to www.google.com

This is the second time you're putting words in my mouth in as many posts. Where did I say Obama was an empty-suit and a liar and when did I use 'Obama is a far left liberal!!' as a point against him?

Edit: Ah, I see maybe it was where I said I was with SFTS. That didn't mean I agreed with every word he said, it's the throng of Obama supporters that resembles a crowd at a Britney Spears concert that I can't understand.

Thanks for the two cents tho, Lemur. I'm not sold on Obama but what you said is sound. For anyone else I might have upset by asking why Obama was so great, I'd like to apologize for the vicious migraine it caused.

[drone]

So does this mean Obama votes Gah!?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My problem with Obama is, first and foremost, that he views the Federal government as THE answer for a majority of issues. This is a fairly broadly held view and is the dominant view of the Democrat party. In that, he is a fair nominee for them. As I take the "government is a necessary evil to be minimized as much as practicable" stance, I don't see eye to eye with him.

Obama has been, so far, more of a "mirror" than an empty suit. His choice to stand for hope and change and to keep the specifics to a minimum was brilliant rhetorical strategy. For quite some time, he let everyone project their hopes for the future on him without making ANY specific claims/plans about what he'd do. Worked like a charm too -- bright guy.

[Xiahou]

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

There's also the claim that he was "handed" sponsorship of bills, that had most of the legwork done already, as resume padding. I posted a link to that effect in the other thread- it's buried in there somewhere...

Here's a rigorous ranking of conservative/liberal votes in the 109th and 110th Congress, giving a more realistic picture of just how Obama and McCain score. Just a little reality check after the broad trumpeting of National Review's highly suspect numbers.

Voteview uses an extremely rigorous methodology for ordering Senators from most liberal to most conservative which to my mind produces some fairly intuitive results. (Five most liberal senators thus far this year? Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehose, and Ted Kennedy).

Sorry, I just caught this- the 'most liberal' label was not from the National Review, but the National Journal- an avowedly non-partisan publication aimed at Washington insiders. Their methodology was completely transparent and even better, blind. I posted their entire methodology in the last thread, obviously you didn't read it.

"Liberal" is an inherently subjective term, but whether Obama is the most liberal, or the tenth most liberal he's still more liberal than the vast majority of even his Democrat peers. Sasaki seems to have embraced this, but you still seem to be in the denial phase.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh good lord, you ain't gonna let it go, are you? Okay, deep breath, let's do this again:

Thats it? That is what makes you believe he would be a good president? Because he beat Hillary and he's not as liberal as he's portrayed? You don't have very high standards huh?

The only thing you mentioned that garners any sort of merit is his work with nuclear nonproliferation. Unfortunately, he just put his name next to legislation that Dick Lugar authored. Wow. Well done, Mr. Obama.

FactionHeir, you can debate the particulars of Obama's record as you like. I was specifically responding to Panzer's petulant rhetorical flourish of, "Somebody respond to me right now or I'm going to run around declaring that nobody can articulate any reason why Obama should be President."

Oh quit bitching. This thread is about discussion on the candidates and if you're going to constantly praise Mr. Obama or post positive articles that echo your own opinions, you should be able to back that up with a minimum of whinging.

Not that our resident fascist would ever vote for a Democrat, much less one who has attended a black church, which makes the whole exercise reek of pointlessness. Seriously, I'm done giving our local Obama-haters the "why." This is the third time I've done it, and there is never any substantive response, and there is never any indication that they've even read what I posted. It's just this reflexive barking of "there's no substance to the guy" and then silence when someone throws some substance up. I'm sick of it, and it's both intellectually lazy and dishonest.

This is such a cop out. The point of this forum is to state and defend your views. Its slightly scary that you're spending more time attacking me, including veiled accusations of racism, instead of defending the man you've championed for months.

Contrary to your accusations, I truly want to know what makes Obama supporters believe he is a good choice. I certainly didn't support Hillary, but I understood why she was a contender. This man isn't an empty suit, he's naked! I even visited his website, which left me even more puzzled. The man has 4 paragraphs on Iraq... I wonder how many of his ardent supporters have even visited the issues section on his website. Have you?

I also note with amusement that I am never called upon to justify why I like McCain, nor any demand to prove why he is a decent choice for CIC. No, it's just Obama, and it's the same damn line of rhetoric every time, a song without variation.

Thats because its quite easy to understand. McCain certainly wasn't my first choice, but I understand why he is the Republican candidate. Whether I agree with his positions or not, the man has a record - an actual record - you know, a way in which to judge his merits. He's the anti-Obama. Real experience and true bipartisanship, when it really matters and not just on feel-good bills.

[FactionHeir]

In other news, Obama's VP search team leader Johnson has resigned.
Question is, did he resign on his own accord or because people within his camp were starting to feel the heat and figured Obama's excuses weren't going to hold up?

[Lemur]

Thats it? That is what makes you believe he would be a good president? Because he beat Hillary and he's not as liberal as he's portrayed?

Is that the sum total of what I said, young fascist?

The only thing you mentioned that garners any sort of merit is his work with nuclear nonproliferation. Unfortunately, he just put his name next to legislation that Dick Lugar authored. Wow. Well done, Mr. Obama.

Yup, that's all he did. Boy, you sure know your stuff.

In August 2005, Obama traveled with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) to nuclear and biological weapons destruction facilities in the former Soviet Union, where they urged the destruction of conventional weapons stockpiles. With Lugar, Obama introduced the Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act, which passed as part of the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.

But I guess he's really just an empty suit riding the coattails of a hard-working white man, correct?

Obama impressed many observers with his initial effort, some tough but fair questioning of John Bolton during those controversial UN ambassadorial nomination hearings, and our sources report that Obama has encouraged serious non-proliferation experts. Says one: "From my colleagues who traveled to the FSU with him, I gather he was deeply engaged, had done his homework, asked substantive and insightful questions...Good to hear."

Its slightly scary that you're spending more time attacking me, including veiled accusations of racism, instead of defending the man you've championed for months.

I assure you, if the forum rules were different, there would be no veils, thin or otherwise. Let's just put it this way: Marxists and communists have an association with mass murder. Maybe it's not the ideology's fault, but there it is. Between Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, they just seem to wind up murdering millions of people. Can't help themselves. Fascists, on the other hand, seem to wind up hating and killing anyone of a different ethnicity than themselves. Maybe the fascist ideology is wonderful, but it just kinda tends to have this side-effect.

So when the resident self-declared fascist embarks on a one-man jihad against a candidate with a different skin color from his own, well, the implications are obvious.

He's the anti-Obama. Real experience and true bipartisanship, when it really matters and not just on feel-good bills.

So nuclear non-proliferation and police interrogation are part of the feel-good agenda? What a fascinating and colorful world you live in, kid.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is that the sum total of what I said, young fascist?

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot the police interrogation bill. Amazing stuff.

Yup, that's all he did. Boy, you sure know your stuff.

In August 2005, Obama traveled with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) to nuclear and biological weapons destruction facilities in the former Soviet Union, where they urged the destruction of conventional weapons stockpiles. With Lugar, Obama introduced the Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act, which passed as part of the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.

This would be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. You attempted to refute my point by saying he went on a trip to Russia.. with the guy who wrote the bill! Do some research. Nuclear nonproliferation was little more than an edited version of a previous bill authored by... none other than Dick Lugar.

So when the resident self-declared fascist embarks on a one-man jihad against a candidate with a different skin color from his own, well, the implications are obvious.

I would normally label such a comment as simply inept, but your continued attacks go further than that. I've constantly defended Jews on this board, as well as blacks and even westernized arabs. You've asked me point blank if I would support any black candidates, and I responded with examples.

So I am forced to come to the conclusion that these constant and baseless attacks are more than the inept ramblings of a misinformed individual, but are in actuallity a sad attempt to divert attention from the fact that - even with the power of Google - you're able to come up with precious little in the way of qualifications that Obama has to be president.

Step back and look at how pathetic you are being. I asked a simple, polite question. My response? "You're a fascist and a racist and you wont vote for him anyway so I don't have to respond!!"

So nuclear non-proliferation and police interrogation are part of the feel-good agenda? What a fascinating and colorful world you live in, kid.

They're not? How many politicians have "Proliferating Nuclear Weapons" as a plank on their platform?


Don't you see what the problem is here? I asked you a simple question about the man's qualifications and besides all the personal attacks and hysteria, all you could come up with of any substance is the fact that he was able to beat the Clinton machine and that he slapped his name on someone else's work. His record is so thin you even had to resort to citing bills he passed in the state legislature!

Most people want hope and change. What is he really going to change though? His platform is a simplistic and naive copy/paste of Hillary's and the standard DNC lines, and as evidenced by his latest Countrywide gaffe - he's certainly not anymore ethical than your standard politician.

Put him under even a modicum of scrutiny, such as in this thread, and his whole facade falls apart. Thats ok though, obviously any criticism of the man reflects deep-seed racism, right Lemur?

[Strike For The South]

How many lies has he been caught out on recently?

Oh and breaking Godwin's law on the second page - I think that's pretty bad...

Auschwitz and the way he handled his state senate campagins. He is not hope or change he is just the same suit with a darker skin tone. Oh well I guess chrisma wins people over more than experince and sound policies. The funny thing is Clinton had a much better plan for health care and Iraq. With Obamas national system 15 million Americans will still be without coverage. That sure fixes allot.

[woad&fangs]

With Obamas national system 115 million Americans will still be without coverage. That sure fixes allot.

A quick google search shows that currently only 50 million Americans are without coverage. So either you're stating Obama's plan will cause MORE Americans to be uninsured or you are making up numbers out of your southern hemisphere.