<p>“Uh, Simba? If everyone was brainwashed into thinking that there were WMD’s in Iraq why wasn’t Obama?”</p>
<p>Perhaps he was confused by the Iraqi and Afghani interpreters? May be was thinking WMDs as Chinese toys? No matter how you spin it ‘present’ vote was an opportunistic cop out.</p>
<p>On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That’s the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the “annihilation” of Israel.</p>
<p>By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.</p>
<p>Simba, sincere question here: why are you so consumed with hatred for Obama? I’m a diehard Democrat, but I don’t feel the need to spew bile at Bush or McCain (or anyone else for that matter) on a constant, recurring basis. CC’s resident righties will stick it to any Democrat who raises his or her head - I get that. But you can’t seem to stop finding anything and everything as a justification for venting your spleen at Obama. I mean - you do realize you’re quoting Karl Rove, right? What did Obama ever do to you? You’ve gone well beyond mere policy differences, or anything of the like. It’s almost like it’s personal with you.<br>
What gives?</p>
<p>I must admit I haven’t read every post in this thread. But it seems to me that many of Simba’s posts clearly highlight BO’s lack of experience necessary for the job. Why do you call that hatred?</p>
<p>“why are you so consumed with hatred for Obama?”</p>
<p>again a classic kool-aid drinker response. Either we are racists or hateful. </p>
<p>I don’t hate him - I just don’t like an empty con man too much on left. I also become alarmed when all the media pundits (Specially on Salon, Huffingtonpost) start prostrating to a messiah in unison. I also don’t buy his dis-association with Wright. Wright stuff was offensive and first to dismiss that as a ‘crazy uncle’ rant (well for 20 years). I also think that MO is a bitter angry woman. I also don’t like the fact that when things suited him, he very clearly played the race card. </p>
<p>And I generally don’t like orators - all the change and hope mumbo jumbo. They can make good movies and win an Oscar or two.</p>
<p>Nothing wrong quoting Rove - If you think Rove was not accurate prove it.</p>
<p>If you don’t like Rove try reading Shelby Steele on Obama.</p>
<p>I am also with you about the fact that he might be able to Wow a crowd like Bruce Springsteen, but that doesn’t mean I think he is the all time rock star(as media pundits call Obama). Just so everyone knows I am a Billy Joel fan!</p>
<p>I do not hate Obama in any manner. I respect him for all of his accomplishments. I am just not willing to say that he has the ability to lead our country.</p>
<p>I keep hearing about how he will bring change. It makes me laugh. The Senate and Congress hold more power, and our President is more often thought of as a head of state figure. The President holds power with the almighty fear that they can hit the nuke button. The Senate and Congress run our daily life, and as of lately they are more pre-occupied with junkets and media face time.</p>
<p>It is very interesting to me throughout the political threads that Obama supporters will state that non-Obama supporters hate him, without acknowledging the real reason has become rhetoric…lack of experience and Wright</p>
<p>I never said all of the posters who oppose Obama are filled with hatred. I understand where most of you are coming from - you’re right wing diehards, Obama’s a liberal - what’s to expect? But Simba takes everything about Obama to an extreme. That’s why I asked. Every cheap shot soundbite about Obama is repeated over, and over and over by Simba. There have been some posters with similar fixations on Clinton and McCain before - Simba is just the “Can’t stop bashing Obama” regular on CC. I’m curious why.</p>
<p>I do find it interesting that people who support the man who has received more support from voters and caucus goers this primary season than any candidate in history are attacked as “Kool-Aid drinkers” and any critique of the over the top criticism of the man who is currently the top candidate in the national polls to be the next president of the United States is met by the self-pitying claims that “You’re calling me a racist!!!” :rolleyes: I guess that’s the new conversation stopper. “You can’t call me on my stupid Obama bashing because that means you’re calling me a racist, you big meanie!!!”</p>
<p>Kluge, I have lost count of the number of Bush bashing threads that reveal a true hatred for the President of our country. I don’t recall you questioning those posters about all of their “hating”, yet you pick on Simba and call him a right wing diehard. I have met right wing diehards, I know right wing diehards, and Mr. Simba is no right wing diehard. The better question is not why Simba opposed Obama, but why you never seem to find any faults in Obama. Any objective person (it does not have to be a Republican) would have many doubts about him. Will you at least admit Obama is inexperienced for office?</p>
<p>“I do find it interesting that people who support the man who has received more support from voters and caucus goers this primary season than any candidate in history”</p>
<p>sweetie…wait till all the primaries are done.</p>
<p>Not-sharp-as-a-razor:
Not that Kluge needs any help, but I’ll use shorter words so you can understand. Right wing diehards would be expected to bash Obama. Simba is a frequent poster, and does NOT seem to be a right wing diehard. Yet Simba bashes Obama, using the same irrelevant issues (Wright, MO) as the dittoheads. Kluge finds it puzzling.</p>
<p>I’ve never read Krauthammer - just seem him on Fox - but this article reveals that Obama is even less savvy than I thought. If this stuff keeps soming out, maybe people will “see” reality pretty soon - before the election, I hope.</p>
<p>Lest we forget, Simba is a pledged delegate from Texas for Hillary Clinton. He took the time to actively participate in the Texas two-step and get himself selected to go to the convention for Hillary so he is no doubt trying his best to make the case for why Hillary should get the nomination cause Obama is a flawed candidate who will lose the general election to McCain. As a good democrat, Simba would most likely not want to see McCain as president, so his efforts are to avoid that outcome. At least that’s the way I see his posts.</p>
<p>drb and Mercymom - spot on. But what interests me is that Simba seems to have abandoned pro-Hillary efforts and simply bashes Obama at every opportunity. Doesn’t bother with McCain, doesn’t advance any coherent argument for Clinton getting the nomination. Just bashes Obama, over and over. Cheap shots, personal attacks, just backs up the truck and lets fly. Over and over. Simba is a democrat. I don’t get it.</p>
<p>I suppose there were many that opposed the war, during the run-up to the war --I was one myself. I do not, however, believe that qualifies me to be president. Given the circumstances, I believe the converse is also true; being against the war is not a disqualifier. Moreover, I think it is difficult to read the actors at that time and how they acted with any clarity. Circumstances and conditions were different for each: Hillary, Barack and McCain.</p>
<p>But having entered into the war with a majority of Americans and congress supporting the invasion, I think it is relevant to consider both the politics played and support offered to the reality of the war once it had become a fait accompli –for all candidates including the congress and senate not just those maneuvering themselves into position to become a president. </p>
<p>More important yet, is the character and prescriptions of the candidate’s plans to “win” the war and how they will define “winning”: Because it must be won. That’s part of the job description of a president, it is no longer good enough to be a critic or a cheerleader. They need to be a President and they need to win in a way that will be acceptable to the people who have given so much for this war in life and taxes. There is a wide array of possibilities; winning could envision a number of different scenarios, not all acceptable to all people, but winning it must be. </p>
<p>The surge seems to have stopped the bleeding and there is a very delicate political balance teetering first this way and that. Who, amongst the candidates is less likely to take a misstep and bring it all crashing down and most likely to end this perilous adventure and satisfy the people they represent. Us. They need to represent the American People and America – not just their parochial base.</p>
<p>I don’t get it, either. I’m an Obama supporter who would line up behind Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat, if she were the nominee. I never could understand why a supporter of one would savagely attack the other. As far as I’m concerned, there’s not a huge difference between them. To me, it’s either one or the other, unless you really want a third Bush term.</p>
<p>I think you hit it, if not directly. It seems that many here see this election as a referendum on Bush; to some, maybe even payback. I take this from the slogan you seem to have adopted from the party. ‘McCain: a third term of Bush.’ It could have as easily been “Obama = Wright,” or “Hillary = Bill.” All of a piece, to my mind.</p>
<p>But there are those, me amongst them, who did not endorse or enjoy the presidency of GWB but are still looking at this election with fresh and open eyes –to the future…maybe even giving all the candidates a fair look.</p>
<p>I like Obama, he is one of the most stunning men I have ever seen run for any office in my life time. Off the charts. Hillary, for whatever reason, has a particular charm and feminine grittiness that I find irresistible, and I cannot forget the fact that if the Republican Party has had a maverick in my adult lifetime it is without question Senator McCain.</p>
<p>I could envision voting for either one for very different reasons in each case. There’s a lot to consider. But some cannot. Many post on this forum. I believe they have honest reasons for their dogged disdain for the other candidates…albeit, mixed in with a rather large helping of boilerplate, to be sure.</p>
<p>“I’m an Obama supporter who would line up behind Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat, if she were the nominee.”</p>
<p>Same here! They have a great deal in common policy wise, particularly compared to McCain. If you care about policy even a little bit, a preference for one should lead to a November vote for the other.</p>
<p>Why oh why would Hillary have to bring Bill along? That’s always been the deal breaker for me. There are things about her that really impress me. In many ways, she’s quite amazing. But Bill…! God, I can’t stand the man, and would hate to see him as Co-President—cheating his way into a third term. I also think that he would be the single biggest thorn in Obama’s flesh, were he to pick Hillary as his VP (assuming Obama were to win the election—yeah, a big if, I know…). And that’s saying a lot, because I believe Drosselmeirer’s analysis of Obama’s chances for a successful Presidency is spot on. </p>
<p>Having said all this, I’m willing to seriously consider voting for Hillary, should she somehow win the nomination and go against McCain. That’s changed drastically from my first stand on this point. It use to be no-way-no-how—LOL! The verdict is still out on my willingness to vote for McCain. Who knows what will happen. November, politically speaking, is a long ways away.</p>