<p>OK, I can’t leave you in Central Kentucky talking to yourself!</p>
<p>Well, I bet it’s pretty there.</p>
<p>It’s lovely. I love the horses and the beautiful countryside. … Ah … I’m wandering off point, but at least I’m not being uncivil. We all know what happens when incivility raises its ugly head on CC.</p>
<p>Just today I saw that again.</p>
<p>Sad. … I try hard not to fly into a CC rage and “say” things I’ll regret a moment later. I’m not always successful, but I try. And I’m finding out that one can make interesting friends of every political stripe if one doesn’t resort to name-calling. … Back on track–go, Obama!</p>
<p>
Examples? I’ve actually never seen the kind of stuff circulated about McCain that’s being furiously peddled about Obama (my favorite: Why won’t he release his birth certificate!?!?! ) What kind of garbage has been circulated about McCain?</p>
<p>Amazingly, not much. McCain’s Keating Five “asterisk,” his philandering on his first wife, his fabled mad-dog temper–none of it seems to make the news. But by golly, Obama’s birth certificate is crucially important.</p>
<p>Um most Americans have grown up with McCain somewhere on their radar screen, whereas Obama seems to most people to have literally popped up overnight to save the world? Obama didn’t exactly make a mark for himself in the Senate before he began forming an exploratory committee to run for president. And most people don’t give a hoot that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. They have questions. I would imagine that is probably too mundane an explanation for many people, however.</p>
<p>As Hillary said: He gave a speech.</p>
<p>Anyone with even an ounce of political literacy would have been very well aware of Obama for at least the past four years. His keynote speech before the Democratic convention in 2004 was amazing, to say the least. To imply that he just popped up on the “radar screen” in recent months is to have sneering contempt for the American people. We’re not stupid. We pay attention. … And Hillary’s comment was an inane, mean-spirited political jab, as one might expect in the midst of a tough-fought campaign.</p>
<p>Hindoo, you admit he gave an amazing speech. I have heard some elogquent speakers over the years in both the business world as well as academia.</p>
<p>They are not qualified to be president.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hillary’s comment was about as ignorant and rude as someone saying about Hillary “She once served cookies in the White House.”</p>
<p>I think as this primary season showed (on both the Republican and Democratic side) the American People are not idiots, they care about their vote and take the time to consider each candidate and won’t just vote for an old standby by default. </p>
<p>If we’d have all listened to what the pundants and press were saying a year ago then it’d be Rudy vs. Hillary. Hillary lost and Rudy didn’t even get a single friggin’ delegate.</p>
<p>You’re right, PG. Great speech-making abilities alone do not a president make. But it’s a good start. I would rather have a smart, articulate, inspiring speaker in our highest office than a doofus who mangles the English language, can’t even read from a teleprompter, and invades foreign countries on profoundly flawed “intelligence.” Just my humble opinion. Spidey, where are you?</p>
<p>Count me out as politically literate then, press the ignore button for my posts! I very vaguely remember his speech at the convention–that it caused a stir at the time. After that I hadn’t heard a peep about him until this past year’s election cycle. Glad to hear you have such faith in the judgment of the American people, but I’m willing to bet the VAST majority of them had not heard of Obama. For instance no one in my family had (and they are even in the “educated” bracket who are supposed to adore him). What is it he accomplished exactly?</p>
<p>
Actually not. Here’s what the nonpartisan factcheck.org staff reports:
[FactCheck.org:</a> That Chain E-mail Your Friend Sent to You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously.](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html)</p>
<p>Never mind. I found it.</p>
<p>[Obama</a> Senate Accomplishments](<a href=“http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dcjcw3bm_51gcpqqnd4]Obama”>http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dcjcw3bm_51gcpqqnd4)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clinton won the popular vote during the primaries.</p>
<p>That’s funny. That Obama accomplishments site doesn’t include his vote for the Cheney Energy Bill with all the giveaways to the energy companies (including Obama’s hometown sugar daddy Exelon).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And Gore won the popular vote in 2000… so what. The party chose Obama, that’s all that matters.</p>
<p>Ilsa–I didn’t mean to offend you. Sorry if I did. … Obama’s political accomplishments seem solid if not mind-blowing. I especially liked the resolution to “Congratulate the Chicago White Sox on Winning the 2005 World Series.” … Seriously, most people probably couldn’t tell you anything about McCain either, other than the fact that he was a prisoner of war. Maybe my confidence in the American people’s political savvy is misplaced. … Interesteddad–Did Clinton win the popular vote during the primaries? I know she liked to say she did, but of course, she was including the votes from Michigan where she was the only major candidate on the ballot. And from Florida, where she campaigned and no one else did. Selective counting, it seems to me. … Calmom–Thanks for the factcheck link.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Her selective math not only counts votes for where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot, but also totally ignores all the caucus states where (although hard data isn’t available) it’s very clear that Obama wipes the floor with her. When you actually count ALL the people that voted in one form or another (in states where people could choose from either Clinton or Obama) then there’s no way that more people voted for her… not that that matters anyway.</p>
<p>Hindoo, she doesn’t include all of the caucus vote either.</p>