Wow...what a post.

You've basically said that Obama has excellent judgment. I beg to differ, and the stories of the past 3 months do as well. I can't wait for the general to really kick into gear: it's about time the Republicans take off the gloves with this guy, since evidentally no one else will.

-a Dem

Posted at June 3, 2008 9:33 PM in response to If Obama Picks Hillary

"I look forward to reading your thoughts on how HRC has been treated so poorly compared to Obama. I really don't see it."

Honestly, do I need to present examples? Obama is such a media darling (while the MSM detests Clinton) that there were multiple news articles as well as skits from SNL criticizing the MSM for its lack of objectivity in covering Obama. Consider the examples I've brought up in my previous post. Now consider how Obama was "vetted" on these issues. What do we know about his connection with Wright? He gave an answer (that actually changed over the course of time) and while most of the media ate it up, some pundits were brave enough to say that his explanations were incoherent and more investigation was needed. Rezko? Again, I am thoroughly unconvinced by his explanation. Look, the point is, HRC has baggage but she has admitted it repeatedly. She is not running on the platform of "changing old politics" while hypocritically acting as an old politician: she is running on her intelligence, experience, and her policy.

Obama on the other hand has tried to retain his holier-than-thou image despite his multiple dirty connections, and when he's been called out, he's either commenced to lecture the nation on why we need to "transcend such issues and look at the big picture" or he's given a lackluster response that was accepted by his supporters and the MSM (since the MSM is full of his supporters) while Clinton supporters and the nation at large are left unconvinced.

"What is this all about? Some sort of call for Obama supporters to take part in a collective Cultural Revolution-style Maoist "struggle session" to denounce anti-Clinton thoughts or sentiments? I certainly do not have any hopes that Clinton supporters are going to admit that her tactics have at times been wrong."

What? On the contrary, I and many Clinton supporters will admit here and now that her tactics have been at times wrong. We know she is ruthless. That is beside the point: Obama and his supporters continue to act like legitimate character (and association) issues are either not issues or have been cleared up, when this could not be farther from the truth. I don't like liars. Clinton is a lying politician, but she doesn't claim otherwise. Obama is the worst kind of liar to me: refusing to even address the issue and treating us like we're idiots when he does give an explanation.

"I was pretty sure that the Philadelphia speech was an admission of faults, and yet also an explanation of them. He wasn't 'lecturing', he was showing leadership. He took the Wright 'scandal' and rather than shunning it, he embraced it and elaborated to provide the context which the YouTube clips had so willfully ignored.

On a different point entirely, I'd like to point out that I feel that much of the 'shock' surrounding Wright's comments was entirely manufactured. When I think of Bush and Cheney, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Iraq, Wiretapping, Rendition, Torture ... yeah, "God Damn America" isn't too far from the truth."

I read the speech. I did not see it as such. I would have thrown my support (and vote) behind Obama then and there if he had been man enough to admit that he had heard such sermons, that he had lied about this issue before out of desperation, and that he now no longer holds any such beliefs. Given the comments by his wife and his association with such a man for so long, I see a stark contrast between the man Obama that is portrayed for political gain and the real Obama.

"Do I believe Obama heard some softer terms along those same lines? Yes, I do.

Do I believe Obama sat there 20years listening to hate speech? No, I don't."

Here is where we disagree. While I will agree with some of those "hateful" statements by the Reverend (but adamantly disagree with others), Obama lied. He continues to lie and then attempts to change the subject. Clinton supporters may be less educated, but they do not lack common sense and they do not believe he had never heard such comments.

Look, I'm all for politicians doing what is necessary, within bounds, to gain power so that they may later do good. Obama is a Chicago politician. Most of us can guess why he joined that church and stayed there for so long (while Oprah evidently went to enough sermons to realize something was very wrong, and consequently left). So long as he does not hold Wright's more extreme views, I am willing to leave this issue alone. But his lack of character comes from his blatant deception in a time of distress. Say what you will, but I was far more impressed by Clinton's admission of error concerning the Bosnia issue in the Philadelphia debate. If I had seen something like this from Obama, I would have gained respect for him.

Posted at May 25, 2008 1:01 PM in response to Quick - What do Ron Paul, Joe Biden and Barack Obama all have in common?

While you've obviously set your argument up in a way so as to prevent any formidable opposition ("There are always a number of platitudes that a candidate must utter in a campaign, but I look for the candidate that does it less, and does it reluctantly"), here are some things that make me strongly disagree with your statement "he not only tells the truth, he relishes in it:"

1) Campaign financing. Plain and simple. He made a promise to the American people and John McCain. He has already hinted he won't keep it, and it should be fairly obvious, given his fundraising talent. This is one of the most blatant lies/flip-flops that I've seen from him, and is a very arrogant move.

2) Reverend Wright. Perhaps you think it was morally right of him not to disown his preacher immediately, but the claim that he did not hear such hateful sermons after attending the church for years is VERY difficult to believe. Anyone that takes Obama at his word here without a doubt should re-evaluate their logic. Imagine the same thing happening, but for HRC. Would you also give her the benefit of the doubt? Incredibly doubtful.

3) Rezko. This story oozes with Chicago politics. Obama was on quite friendly terms with the guy, was involved with him in a real estate deal that was beneficial for him, yet claims to have known nothing about Rezko's reputation. Again, you guys that would fail to question Obama's explanation are really disgustingly illogical.

By your own metric, is Hillary bad? Sure. Does she lie? Hell ya. But does she claim to represent a new kind of politics, to transcend the faults of old politicians? No.

What really peeves me about Obama is that, in the end, he is just another politician. It doesn't even make sense anymore to say that he has a clean slate: his history is as bad if not worse than most of the initial possible Dem nominees. If this weren't the case, the Dems wouldn't be worrying at all about their prospects in November when all of the special elections point to landslide victory.

Yet, as we saw with Rev. Wright, when Obama is caught in a lie or a bad position, he doesn't apologize or own up to his fault. On the contrary, he proceeds to lecture the rest of us, as with the speech about the Wright affair, and the MSM eats it up. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think we should be objective in our judgments. Like it or not, myself and many other Clinton supporters do feel like Obama has gotten a free pass (or close to one) from the MSM and his supporters while Clinton has been pounded.

Writing in Hillary and staying home are options that a growing minority of HRC supporters are considering. Don't be so quick to write us off as unimportant either; elections are often decided by a small percentage and McCain is proving to be the Republican's best chance against Obama. Obama's actions (and those of his supporters) are not water under the bridge; this needs to be addressed or many of us will not be falling in line as Dems in the fall. Posts like these, though certainly not with such intentions, only solidify the belief that HRC has not only been pushed aside unfairly, but that Obama and his supporters actually belief he is without blemish. He and his supporters need to admit these faults and explain them, yet this does not seem to be an action that will be undertaken by Obama or any of his supporters. Until then, I look forward to a McCain victory in the fall.

Posted at May 25, 2008 3:34 AM in response to Quick - What do Ron Paul, Joe Biden and Barack Obama all have in common?

I will be voting in November. I'll be writing in Hillary Clinton. I hope many follow suit. I would never vote for a joke like Obama. He is deeply offensive on a moral level: he and Clinton are both politicians and corrupt, but he's gotten away with bold-faced lies, telling voters that he's here to change the way politics works. I despise this man. His supporters are, generally, proud and hateful. I hope he loses. I look forward to four years of McCain as opposed to you people getting your way and leading the country in an even worse direction.

Hillary 2012

Posted at May 16, 2008 1:34 AM in response to Hillary's concession speech planned...early draft leaked

It is not a matter of whether its a good argument or not. It's historical fact. Perhaps Obama can create a new electoral map that will lead him to the White House, but if he ends up falling into the typical mold, losing WV so drastically is not a good sign.

Posted at May 15, 2008 5:18 PM in response to Do We Really Want West Virginia Picking the Next President?

The point is not whether you WANT WV to pick the next president. It just happens to be a matter of history that for the past 40 years or so, a Democrat has not won in the general without winning WV in the primary.

Posted at May 15, 2008 1:36 AM in response to Do We Really Want West Virginia Picking the Next President?

Unfortunately, that seems like a terrible undemocratic way of doing things. "Sure, your votes will count in some manner, but not until after the game is over."

I somehow doubt the party leaders would be that stupid. Or would they?

Posted at May 14, 2008 5:31 PM in response to A question about that magic number

Now we're talking.

And I think the Clinton camp wants to do this so that several things may happen:

A) It will take longer for Obama to secure the nomination

B) Clinton will cut into his delegate lead somewhat

C) Everyone will go crazy about what to do with the popular vote count: at the very least, Florida will likely become an official part of the popular vote total.

All of these favor Clinton. Moreover, they can press this case while making Obama look bad if he continues to deny the seating of these delegates in any form.

Posted at May 14, 2008 3:59 PM in response to A question about that magic number

My post was in response to Spade, btw

Posted at May 14, 2008 3:33 PM in response to A question about that magic number

Right, but to my knowledge, Clinton has the committee stacked with at least half of its members being supporters of her. Now of course most of them will choose the party over her, but I can't help but think many of them will think it in the best interest of the party to try and include MI and FL in the nomination process in some manner. Perhaps this will be like the Republicans and they will give each state half of its delegates. Then, Obama's task would be a bit sloper giving Clinton more time to hold him off until the end of the primaries and make her case.

But yes, I certainly see your point. I don't think people want this to go on and hurt the party, regardless of who they support. However, I also think people want a shot at winning FL and MI for the Dems in November.

Posted at May 14, 2008 3:32 PM in response to A question about that magic number