interesteddad

Then, people would accuse her of copying Obama who goes ghetto with his accent campaignin' to black audiences, droppin' all his "g's" and riffin' on Malcolm X about gettin' bamboozled and hoodwinked by the white oppressors doin' the okie doke.

Then, he goes back to the Harvard lingo and talkinG about the price of arugula in Whole Foods for white crowds.

interesteddad

I noticed you left the Chappaquiddick Kid off your list. Kinda hard to make the case he's a big supporter of women when he's killed one.

kluge

Interesteddad, after reading your last few posts I have concluded that there's really only one explanation for what you write: you're part of Rush Limbaugh's Project Chaos, and you're doing everything you can to hurt Hillary Clinton, by making her supporters - and by extension, the candidate herself - appear to be nasty, whiny and irrational.

Is that really your idea of reasoned discourse? It demeans Hillary Clinton to make the stupid and dishonest arguments being transparently fronted for her about the Michigan and Florida delegations. I'd like to think she's better than that. Democratic women will leave the party if a woman loses the nomination fair and square to a man? How stupid do you think American women really are?

C'mon - 'fess up - you're a mole, aren't you?

Mr Payne

Obama doesn't pander. How could he when he's not a politician? The Messiah is physically unable of pandering.

teriwtt

You mean there's more than one of me?

Hindoo

Yes, teriwtt--there are at least two of us!

#381--"Is that really your idea of reasoned discourse?" Of course not. ID doesn't engage in "reasoned" discourse, but rather venomous, toxic raving that makes me agree that he's part of Limbaugh's "project chaos." He does no favors to Hillary, whatsoever. ...

Mr. Payne--Obama can pander with the best of them. That's what makes a successful politician ... unfortunately. ... As far as the gas tax "holiday" goes, it's Clinton and McCain who are up to their eyeballs in pandering.

cornfed

this has really gotten laughable here.i-dad now you're part of operation chaos!

as for pandering Obama has 'em both beat. He's handing out indie concert tickets to college kids in NC as long as they sign a loyalty oath.

my kid was sitting in her freshman seminar and a fellow student for Obama went off on other students when the instructor asked them all their preferences. unlike epiphany who just condescends here at least this kid just let it out.But then she's 18.

tega

Some of Obama followers can be very vile. I have stopped visiting huffingtonpost (this site is such a joke),and some blogs that I used to visit, stopped watching cnn, msnbc, and the rest of the biased media. These groups are a total sham.

I have been called a racist by some of Obama's followers on some blogs just because I don't support Obama. These people don't even know my race!

All politicians pander, all of them lie, so I don't hold it against any of them. For me, I care about the person addressing the issues that concern me. Most importantly, the solutions must be feasible. I don't care about how beautiful, handsome, educated, rich or whatever you are, if you are not addressing the issues that I care about you wont get my vote.

ucsd_ucla_dad

I doubt he is but reading the posts in this thread does demonstrate that 'project chaos' seems to be working!

masterdebater

I'm sorry but Obama and Hillary are not great candidates (in all fairness, neither is McCain).

Obama's selling point is his charisma but where does leadership entail charisma? Historically there is not viable link between speaking well and acting well.

Obama appeals to people because generally people hate Bush and believe that they should avoid any semblance of him. However, Obama has no issue on anything. "change" is the biggest load of cr@p I've heard.

What is he changing?
In what capacity will he change "it"?
Why is change necessarily good?
Why did he, as John Edwards pointed out, Refused to vote over 100 times in congress - because he couldn't give a speech for it?

I think people tend to think of themselves as rebels or intellectually dissenting people by "changing" the problems. But insofar as no one can give any substantive response to any of the questions posed themselves, they are being hypocritical or wasting everyones' time.

Onto Wright, Hillary makes some sense - why would you attend a service that you don't agree with on any level? This puts him in a double bind: Either he admits that he agreed on some level with what Wright says then he is at least in the small part slanted against whites by always referring to whites as "typical whites". Or If he truly attended anyway, what's to say he won't be a puppet at the national level and become subservant to the "establishment" (or the anti-change folks).

Further it is almost embarrassing to watch him struggle to answer questions. His race bit was counter-intuitive and off-topic. The Wright situation is not about racism (or at least in its core). The Wright situation is about Obama's unwillingness to uncover parts of his past that affect his character. If we can't trust him why should we elect him. As far as the race bit, it didn't address the core point within the Wright situation.

Race shouldn't be an issue. In debate there are certain caveats. The government only has the ability to stop inherency but never attitudinal inherency. An attitude like racism cannot be stopped at the national level. If we go back to the civil rights mvts, we can see that legislation was passed and the problem wasn't solved. Why? Because the government isn't the solution, the people are. (As Regan put it: "The government is too big and it spends too much"). To change (there's his favorite word) racism you can't go through the government it takes grassroots upheaval. So, on a holistic level, Obama isn't approaching it right. Plus, Obama is being very hypocritical because he keeps saying all the people who he is related to: Brad Pitt, LJ, etc. are all white! Plus, why does he care so much about racism? As an Irish Catholic, can't I claim racism when the Irish weren't allowed in America because of being Catholic and being dirty with their potatoes? Where is my justice, aren't we all not people? Could I go back further and say that I was oppressed by the English for similar reasons?

Moreover, not to burst anyone's bubble but there is a lot more important issues than rehashing Obama's view of equality. Health care (*cough* without bankrupting the gov) should take precedence; immigration, which affects tens of millions of people should take precedence; economics, etc.

As for his overall qualifications there isn't much to talk about because there aren't any. Obama's only qualification is anti-bush. Obama is the everything not Bush that people are too unwilling to swallow because they disagreed with Bush. Instead of rationally choosing a candidate that isn't a freshman senator, America will send a freshmen voted the most liberal (the most anti-Bush). Think of it this way (those few of you reading this): America is like a big school electing a student body presedent. The last one was a really annoying guy you didn't like and now a new election comes and you're voting in the freshman just out of eighth grade because he "relates" to "you".

So go for it America, take your anti-Bush pill, but remember this eight years later when your scrambling to find someone who was just voted the most Republican senator - but I get to say I told you so...

Proof: Eyeblast.tv - A Video Portrait Of Barack Hussein Obama

epiphany

I find post 377 particularly distasteful. (I didn't call her a "b i t c h." You did.) And that trite old lame excuse that she "doesn't want to sound shrill," or be accused of ___________(whatever, fill in the blank) is not credible. Other female politicians do not speak with affected slow deliberateness. It's condescending, annoying as hell, and unnatural. I don't think -- I know -- she doesn't speak to her own family, or to people she considers true peers -- that way. No one does. Terrific. She doesn't consider me a peer. That's unfortunate, because I'm at least as bright as she is. And even if that were the only reason for me not to applaud her possible nomination (it isn't), it would be a good enough reason.

Keshira

It's not you she doesn't consider her peer, just the American public, most of which probably isn't her peer.

BandTenHut

masterdebater, I watched the first 2.5 minutes of that video and I already witnessed one outright lie. So yeah, great 'proof.'

Novelisto

I-dad -- I guess that means that Laura Bush can't be a 'big supporter' of men because, after all, she killed one. Or don't you know that she ran a stop sign as a teenager and slammed into the car of her former boyfriend?

As a middle-class, middle-aged, Caucasian (mostly), married woman from the Mid-Atlantic region, I support Barack Obama. Not because he's a 'messiah' -- really, how sacreligious can you get? -- but because he has a message that resonates with me, a vision that appeals to me, and I'm really, really tired of the White House having only two families living in it. I want the future, not the past. Bill Clinton was the 'bridge to the 21st Century.' It's time for others to cross that bridge. Moses didn't get to the Promised Land, either...oh, now I'm being sacreligious (G).

CelticClan07

So much for Pastor Wright hurting Obama. Obama took a thrashing in the press over the last 2 weeks and look what happened. Americans are not dumb. And some say he can't stand the heat??? Poppycock!! Thank you IN and NC!!!