I would not even criticize Mitt Romney for his religion, however ridiculous it might seem to me. What people do in church is their own private business, like what they do in their bedrooms. To do this is religious persecution, and it is as un-American as worm-infested apple pie.

Obama has not brought his religion into the public square. By contrast, Mike Huckabee has said things like we should amend the Constitution to be more in line with his interpretation of the Bible. As American citizens we all have to believe in the Constitution, not the Bible. This opens Huckabee to criticism from all those of us who do not believe as he does.  Obama has done nothing of the kind, and to bring his religious practices out into the public square is religious persecution, it’s wrong, it’s immoral, it’s politically sleazy, and it’s against the freedom of relgion which makes a multicultural democracy possible.

Rude? Moi? What did I say? What?

Me thinks, Patty is not a real person, instead Patty may be 5 Republicans putting their tiny heads together, trying to interject their learned opinions or it could be three Hillary supporters doing the same thing. More likely one our two college kids? 

Unregistered commenter’s seem to be such.

Cyrena,

Did you watch the Bill Maher show last night? This time he had a conservative panel including Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA). I heard this same kind of ridiculous garbage from Kingston right there on the show. According to Kingston, Obama won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance or he won’t put his hand on his heart when he says it. He won’t swear with his hand on the Bible. He won’t wear an American flag lapel on his tie. In other words, he’s not an American or a Christian, he’s some kind of weird foreigner and not a patriotic American, either a Muslim or some kind of Communist or both. He is not to be trusted.

I believe this is the picture the Republican image-making machine is spitting out. This is the Rovian plan. There are many people like Patty that are vulnernable to it. This is what we are going to have to fight for the next eight months to get Obama elected.

Also, once Obama is elected President, he is indeed going to be “tested”, as the right-wingers say, but not so much by by “our enemies” like Ahmedinejad, but by these right-wingers themselves, our real enemies. They will do everything they can think of to destroy his presidency in the first few months. 
The last resort, of course, will be assassination.

I’m not sure there’s much hope for the Pattys of the world Tony, if they actually believe that Obama doesn’t support their children, spouses, parents, siblings, who are actually dying AND killing in Iraq or Afghanistan.

They won’t get that ‘supporting’ our troops means NOT having them there to begin with.

So, we’re reading posts here from an hysterical/neurotic person, who can legitimately be said to be under a certain amount of stress, as a result of having a son in harms way for no reason.

It is very difficult for people who have lost loved ones in Iraq, (and I know many) to come to grips with the reality that there is no mission there, and that they are in harms way for no reason other than the imperial motivations of the Bush Administration. They cannot accept that in addition to the number of troops that have lost their lives, their limbs, or their minds, over a million innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed as well. Again, for no reason other than to make that oil forever accessible to the American Imperial Project. It is a reality that they cannot, and will not accept. At least not for the moment.

I’ve known some who have finally been able to accept the reality of it, even those who have lost loved ones there. Cindy Sheehan comes to mind. But so many others claim that even SHE, having lost a son to the madness, is simply ‘spreading hate’. So, people like Patty don’t get it, because they ‘can’t’ get it. For them, reality is far too painful, and it is much easier to focus on stupid stuff, like hocus pocus, ritual and rabbit hole stuff, (an anti-christ, or whether or not somebody ‘puts their hand on a bible’ or not.

Like I said, stupid stuff that somehow diverts the mind (and therefore their reason/sanity) from the painful reality. Some folks will avoid that reality indefinitely, or forever. Others will eventually come around.

You see what these criminals have done to us. I’m not so sure that all of these citizens were as crazy as they are now, before insanity became the norm from the top down.

Patty,

This is called ‘PROVING A NEGATIVE’. Nobody can ‘prove’ that something ‘is not’.

It’s like trying to ‘prove’ that God does NOT exist.

How does one really ‘prove’ that something does not exist. How does one prove that Obama (or anyone else for that matter) is NOT a member of the KKK? I mean really, think about what it is that you’re suggesting here.

I suggest it because this mentality of suggesting that one can actually ‘prove’ a negative, has caused enormous problems on the face of issues that are by far more significant that something stupid like Obama being a KKK member.

For instance...the constant accusations that this administration has made against Iran, (and Iraq before that) about them having a nuclear WEAPONS program. They don’t. They have a nuclear ENERGY program. But, how does one ‘prove’ that their energy program does not also incorporate the possibility of nuclear weapons?
Actually, there IS a way to do that, which is exactly what the IAEA was set up to do. But, how many people know about the IAEA, and the work of the inspectors, etc, etc, when it’s been far easier to listen to the hype that is sprouted by the Administration…. Iran is making nukes?

Same thing goes with this stupidity of Obama belonging to an ‘all black church’. In reality, that’s about as dumb as the KKK thing. In reality, there are literally hundreds of what could easily enough be considered ‘all black churches’ that has been the case for decades upon decades. For the most part, churches have been, (at least when I was growing up and attended frequently) associated with demographics more than anything else. People went to the churches closest to their homes/parishes. If one lives in a mostly black neighborhood, one is likely to go to a mostly black church. Do you think there are ANY black folks in the Bush Cheney Protestant Church in Highland Park, (Dallas, TX). Can you guess how many ‘WHITE ONLY’ churches there are in the nation?

My parents belong to what is a large Christian Denomination in the US. It is the African Methodist Episcopal Church. It has an interesting history, and you can learn all about it if you’d like to, here at this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Methodist_Episcop al_Church

• African: The AME church was organized by people of African descent. The church was not founded in Africa, nor is it ONLY for persons of African descent. The church is open to people of all races.

• Methodist: The church’s roots are in the Methodist church. Members of St. George’s Methodist Church left the congregation when faced with racial discrimination, but continued with the Methodist doctrine and the order of worship.

• Episcopal: The AME church operates under an episcopal form of church government. The denomination leaders are Bishops of the church. Episcopal, in this sense, refers to the form of government under which the church operates.

I don’t know if Obama’s Church is an AME Church. My point in putting this out there, is to make it very clear, that there are many ‘all black’ churches, who become that way –NOT- because they exclude any other races, but just by the nature of the founding ideology. I mentioned my parent’s church because while 99% of the congregation is African-American, one of the pastors is WHITE.

Chicago, Illinois, specifically the South Side of that city, (in case you didn’t know) has had a predominately African American population for many decades. So, if a whole bunch of the congregation of Trinity Church, (Obama’s Church) happens to be black, it’s not a ‘conspiracy’.

40 Years ago, my own Catholic Church was a pretty even mix of white, black and Hispanic. Now it’s mostly Hispanic, with a left over handful of African-Americans. The priests are still white.

Do you get that? Here again, this isn’t rocket science. It’s just the way of the world.
I swear for the life of me, that I don’t get how these urban legends manage to create themselves.

Re PATTY, February 21 at 11:07 am #

I will not vote for a man that can not place his hand on the bible. Or a man that belongs to a church that does not allow white people. He doesn’t even support our troops! He said there are over there killing innocent people! How dare you Obama! My son is over there you evil man! Even if you were the only one running I would not vote for you!!!!!!!!!!! I do believe you are the Antichrist!
-----------------------------------------------------
Gee, Patty - I would like to get you on our side, so I will try not to laugh. Look, my dear, all these rumors are utterly preposterous. The question is how you can possibly believe them. Where did you come by this “information”? I can give you some links that might help with your education
Don’t believe everything you see on U-Tube, and watch out for the caca!

New York Times article:

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?_r=1&emc=tn t&tntget=2008/02/11/opinion/l11cohen.html&tntemail0 =y&oref=slogin

U-Tube video depicting Obama the Antichrist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPUe6T8RVXs

Also, just for fun, check out these two U tube productions: The first one was actually taken seriously on rense.com for about one day before being exposed as a hoax. The second one is a spoof of the first one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY&feature =related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_wRb8J_bjM&NR=1

Barack loves you!

WOW- Sounding familiar...DOES IT EVER!! It almost gave me the willies, (no pun intended) because I didn’t hear this speech by Bill Clinton in 1998. (I remember that I had some other issues going at the time, which prevented me from paying much attention).

Anyway, thanks for posting this Outraged. If it weren’t for the much clearer language, and better use of the English language, it would have sounded like a page out of the standard “War on Terror” play book. (and to think we’ve been giving all the credit for that to the Rove Machine and the Cheney fear mongering operatives.)

Particularly noteworthy here, (at least for me) is that same old stuff about these ‘terrorists’ attacking us for ‘what we stand for’. I’m getting real tired of that.

IF anyone has attacked us, or made us an adversary “precisely because of what we stand for” then these guys need to NAME what it is that we STAND FOR, in order to know what is so ‘adversarial’ about it.

Needless-to-say, not a single, solitary politician, relying on this standard play, has EVER bothered to explain or otherwise ‘talk to us about’ the reasons why the adversaries ‘don’t like what we stand for’, because that would require naming those those…Hegemony, Imperialism, freedom to go anywhere we want on the globe, and export our what we call “democracy” and plunk it right down in areas that have their own forms of it. And while we’re exporting this so called democracy, (whether they want it or not) we’re importing, (i.e. STEALING) all of their natural resources, on which their own survival depends. And, people wonder why those folks are all pissed off.

So, maybe our leaders should just TELL US what it is that we ‘stand for’ that has the ‘adversary’ so annoyed. Fat chance that’s ever gonna happen.

Still…I’m just saying..

PS..of course this easily fits into the NAFTA plan as it was made into policy in the Clinton Admin. And they wonder why we have adversaries. Free trade = the US and transnationals take whatever they want from around the globe. That’s what we ‘stand for’.

Hey, that’s me! I’m an Obammunist! My parents really were Communists back in the 30’s and 40’s, and in the 50’s we lived in Atlanta Georgia where my dad was teaching physics at the University and doing really subversive stuff like playing chess with black people at our house (they had to sneak around to the back door to get in for fear of being seen).  These activities eventually got out and our family had to flee to Mexico in 1963 where we lived for 8 years before returning from exile in 1961.

Now, after all these years, we’re back! We have returned as Obammunists! Come the Revolution, we’re all going to have strawberries and cream! All hail Chairman Barack! Nothing can stop us now!

Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.........

I might have a hard time coming up with links to Hardball show clips to support my position, but if I find one I will let you know. I can only say that my impression has been that Matthews has been equally nasty to both sides on occasion. You do understand I’m a huge Obama supporter, right? I just don’t see any point in putting down Matthews, and the negativity could hurt. Let’s stay positive. Why antagonize him? Instead, let’s get him on our side.

Let’s face it, Hillary supporters would and want to support and believe in the stories I talked about below. 

Urban legions are alive and well, don’t know about you, but I get many emails with some inane ending to pass it on to all my email contacts. 

These stories could and may be used in the same way, the comments and blog about the KKK, black only church, hand on the bible, etc is sad, because some people will believe them, luckily the KKK article would be of little significance, and may have a revers effect and gather support of morons in the KKK for Obama or they may become agitated and drop out of the KKK, this could be positive in two respects.

I found the KKK story amusing, the problem is others may believe it as the gospel. Ignorance has no bounds on what is believable, truth has not a chance.

Things don’t actually get done DC. Nothing fundamental has been done in any area for 40 years, including under Clinton. What Clinton knows is how things don’t get done in DC.

It’s time for Hillary supporters to start being as civilized as their standard-bearer was in tonight’s debate.

Sorry,

I just posted that KKK article for a laugh. My mistake.

Sorry. I didn’t really check it out. I was laughing too hard.

Peace

Leefeller:

The KKK story was from a satiric publication, the “black only church” story is exaggerated, not putting his hand on the Bible has been debunked, and the antichrist is not (from all the interpretations I have seen - and I’ve seen many) going to be either black or an American.

As for, “Well you have not called him a liar, cheat and scoundrel yet?,” let me be the first to call him a liar.

Indeed, he is a liar AT LEAST three times.  First, he promised his Illinois constituents that he would serve out his entire first term prior to considering a run for president.  He did not.  Second, he promised his constituents he would pass legislation which would better regulate Exelon and other energy companies who were bilking customers (and possibly causing an increase in cancer rates).  Yet not only did he allow Exelon to re-write the legislation in their favor, but he accepted over $200,000 in campaign contributions from them.  Third, he stated - in public, on TV, during a debate - that “the only” connection between him and Tony Rezko was “5 hours” he spent on “a single case” as a “junior attorney.” Yet not only did he also spend at least five months working closely with Rezko on a real estate deal (they bought contiguous lots), but he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Rezko for his campaigns.

That leaves “cheat” and “scoundrel.” I’ll let others tackle those.

Peace.

Desperate Hillary folks seem insane. Obama in the KKK, black only church, will not put his hand on a bible, the antichrist.  Well you have not called him a liar, cheat and scoundrel yet?

Support Hillary, she is the perfect Christian, she voted for the war. Maybe you can burn a cross with your hand on the bible for good measure and lobby the local KKK in support of bigots everywhere. 

Vote for McCain, he wants to have a 100 year war and I am sure he probably has a bible were the sun doesn’t shine.

Hillary supporters are really getting desperate.

I already said once the PAC money is at center for responsible politics.  See you aren’t looking for Links or sources just vindictiveness and to make people who might read you think you are so clever.

Where are all of YOUR links for the shit you spew????

Didn’t provide links as no one will look it up anyway since its something OBAMA did.  I’ll tell you where to go but you won’t go there, none of you OBAMAites can believe there is anything OBAMA might be guilty of. Not their messiah.
Regarding the PAC money go to the center for responsible politics, said that in my post so you really didn’t want a source just want to deny, deny, deny. Kennedy thing look up the Kennedy s presidency I took the quotes from Taylor Branch.

The Daily Squib is a satire publication, like the Onion.  It is not to be taken seriously.

Peace.

“Yet the only things the Obama supporters here seem to harp on are Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War resolution (admittedly foolish), her “ambition” or “entitlement” (cancelled out, as above), and some of the (admittedly idiotic) things Bill Clinton has done on the campaign trail.”

Now Maani, you know that’s not true.  And you shouldn’t make a proxy-type apology for Clinton’s war vote.  While it is a MAJOR issue, it is certainly not the only issue.  Not just “foolish” Maani, it was extremely SERIOUS.  How many are now dead, maimed for life or have been injured because of it?  This is NOT a small transgression.  It very well has turned into the deaths of approximately a million people.  This should not be whisked aside or dealt with as a mistake.  We are talking about comtemplating the deaths of all these people in a frivilous manner.  And that was a MONUMENTAL flippant vote, one in which Clinton refuses to take responsibility for TO THIS DAY.

As for Bill: An excerpt from President B. Clinton’s speech 8-20-1998 concerning the attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan.

“THE PRESIDENT:

Good afternoon. Today I ordered our Armed Forces to strike at “terrorist-related” facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the “imminent threat” they presented to our national security.

I want to speak with you about the objective of this action and why it was necessary. “Our target was terror”. Our mission was clear—to strike at the network of “radical groups” affiliated with and funded by “Osama bin Laden”, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international “terrorism” in the world today.

The groups associated with him come from diverse places, but share a “hatred for democracy”, a “fanatical glorification of violence”, and a horrible distortion of their religion to justify the murder of innocents. They have made the United States their adversary “precisely because of what we stand for” and what we stand against.”

**.....Sound familiar..?  (Funny how Osama’s always right around the corner but by hook or by crook we can’t find em’) To say Bill and by association Hillary (esp. after her Iraq war vote) aren’t LYING is off.  Way off!

(Note, all phrases in quotes emphasized by me)

Lib said, “Ted Kennedy say Obama reminds them of JFK.”

I think it might be time to really LOOK at JFK, instead of allowing visceral feelings about him to cloud the truth.

What did Kennedy actually accomplish?  Very little - and not just because he was assassinated.  His only real accomplishments were the Peace Corps, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the space program.

Yet on the other side of this coin, we have a litany of negative things:

-The Bay of Pigs fiasco.  Nothing need be said.

-The Cuban Missile Crisis.  According to many scholars, this was the direct result of Kruschev’s (initially correct) belief that Kennedy was “weak” on foreign policy and that Kruschev could take advantage of that weakness.

-Vietnam.  Kennedy not only escalated the war, but sanctioned the overthrow of Diem, and was the first to use napalm and defoliants.

-Iraq.  Ironically, it was Kennedy who backed the coup against Kassem, which led to the Baathist party take-over (and the murder of thousands of communists and others), and the reign of Saddam Hussein.

-Civil Rights.  Although he stepped in to make sure the new integration laws were carried out, Kennedy distanced himself from this issue as a whole, causing many grassroots activists and leaders to call him “no friend of civil rights.”

Given all this, I’m not sure if I’m thrilled that Obama reminds people of JFK.

Peace.

Marchese:

“OBAMA IS SIMPLY JUST IN IT TO WIN IT PEOPLE. THINK ABOUT IT. What rookie goes into the Senate and runs for President within the first couple of years? What a quick promotion he wants!”

Bravo!  And yet all the Hillary-bashers here like to harp on how “ambitious” and “entitled” she is.  But who’s more ambitious and entitled?  Someone who waits until they have real, solid national-level (not just state-level) legislative and foreign policy knowledge and experience under their belts? Or someone who does not, and doesn’t even keep the promise he made to his constituents that he would serve out his first term before considering a presidential run?  At least Hillary kept the same promise to HER constituents!

I cannot help but think that the Obama supporters are in a SERIOUS state of denial about him and his character: he broke his promise to his constituents by not serving out his first term; he betrayed his constituents vis-a-vis Exelon (AND then accepted over $200,000 in campaign donations from Exelon!); he weakened his anti-war position by voting to fund that war (three or four times) once he got to the Senate; he weakened his position on civil liberties when he voted TWICE to re-authorize the Patriot Act; he cribbed his positions on both health care (from Edwards) and withdrawal from Iraq (from Hillary); he has plagiarized not only his friend and colleague (which may be excusable since they share a speechwriter), but from (of all places) The West Wing (twice, possibly three times) and from Rev. Jim Wallis’ book, “God’s Politics” (from which he took his now-ubiquitous line, “we are the ones we have been waiting for"); and he lied - bald-faced, publicly lied on national TV - about his relationship with Tony Rezko, saying his “only” connection was “5 hours” he worked on “one case” as a “junior attorney,” when the truth was that they had purchased contiguous real estate lots (bringing them together for at least five months) AND Obama accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Rezko.

Yet the Obama supporters here are in denial about all of this, or find flimsy ways to rationalize or justify these things in order that Obama’s Teflon-coating not be scratched.

And perhaps most cogently, as you note, Obama simply does not have NEAR the foreign policy experience (or relationships with foreign leaders) that Hillary does - something that is CRITICAL right now, given the current and changing global situations.  Indeed, as I have noted elsewhere, Hillary is STILL seen, by 2 to 1, as the candidate that most people would want in office in the event of another 9/11-type attack, proving that people see her as more “grounded” - and perhaps even as more presidential and/or more of a CIC.

Yet the only things the Obama supporters here seem to harp on are Hillary’s vote for the Iraq War resolution (admittedly foolish), her “ambition” or “entitlement” (cancelled out, as above), and some of the (admittedly idiotic) things Bill Clinton has done on the campaign trail.

Yet for all their use of the GOP playbook in attacking Hillary, the Obama supporters here are unable to provide any legitimate criticism of her actual positions on various issues, since (i) many of Obama’s positions are identical to hers, so they would only be criticizing Obama as well, and (ii) where they differ, Hillary’s positions are better and/or more realistic (both economically and logistically).

Peace.

Let me parse one of Tony’s latest absurd statements:

“Obama’s resume is short, but clean, and better than Hillary’s.”

Clean?  Not quite.  He betrayed his constituents by allowing Exelon to get away with murder, after assuring them he would not.  And then he added insult to injury by accepting over $200,000 in campaign contributions from Exelon.

Better?  How are you defining this?  He has two years of national-level knowledge and experience, as compared to Hillary’s six.  And although many pooh-pooh it, Hillary DID derive some important knowledge and experience during her eight years as First Lady, including interacting with foreign leaders (with whom she now has relationships that Obama does not), and advocating - globally - for both women’s and human rights.  Obama’s foreign policy experience is virtually non-existent, especially compared with Hillary’s.  (More on this in my post in response to Marchese.)

“He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, whereas Hillary is a centrist, DLC Democrat.”

Not according to many of the publications and organizations who track relative “liberality,” most of whom rate them equally liberal or, in the case of conservative groups, equally NON-conservative.

“He made a prescient speech against the Iraq war in 2002 when Hillary was voting for it.”

Yup.  And then once he got to the Senate he voted to fund that war every time funding appropriations came up.

“My estimate of his political abilities based on having observed him since 2004 is that they are outstanding, the best I have ever seen, better than Bill Clinton (who was his age when he became President).”

Obviously, your “estimate” is based on a severe lack of knowledge of history, of Bill Clinton prior to his election, and a hopeless overestimation of Obama’s knowledge and experience.

“I like Bill and Hillary, but as a strong liberal I would rather see an Obama presidency than a third Clinton term.”

Sorry, bud; no matter how many times you and others try to mangle grammar, syntax and history, Hillary was never president, so it would be a FIRST Clinton term for her.  After all, either Hillary did not learn to be president “by osmosis” (i.e., being First Lady) or she was “co-president with Bill (which is absurd).  But you can’t have it both ways.

Hillary’s positions on the issues are the same as or better than Obama’s, but none are less good (or even, in many cases, all that different).  Hillary’s foreign policy knowledge and experience are SO much greater than Obama’s that it is not even a contest.  And Hillary has a FAR more realistic understand of and approach to how things ACTUALLY GET DONE in DC.

Peace.

With all your research I’m sure you have some links to go along with all your information.  Could you please provide links since without confirmation it’s all just rhetoric.  Thanks.....

My objectivity...?  Provide links to Matthews’ attacking Clinton supporters.  I’d like to be totally objective here, so seeing both sides would be in order.  I’ve tried every which way to find some in google video but have been unable to.  I’m assuming that since you’ve seen these you could probably link to them, since you would know the issue being discussed at the time. 

BTW, you haven’t even touched upon the fact that Clinton didn’t vote in the recent FISA legislation.  Why not..?  As I said she was the ONLY SENATOR not voting on this crucial issue.

As far as that KKK story....could you provide other links as well since that’s basically a “National Enquirer” type of site and I wasn’t able to find others through a Google News search.  Thanks…

rdv, LOVE people like you who speak for the country.

You don’t speak for me !!!

You OBAMA fans know nothing but freaken damn rhetoric , chalk board , chaeney (did you mean Cheney),plotted and planed with Billo, hook line and sinker, just plain boring crap that I used to see when GWB was running for pres in 2000 and 2004.

I’m going to pull a Cyrena here except I have researched every word I am about to write.
No one seems to be aware of OBAMA’s PAC dealing.  “I’m sure every one knows PAC stands for political action committee. If not go to american history.co.uk” Obama has been attacking Hillary for months now on lobbying contributions, but OBAMA has steered $180,000 to officials and groups in the early days of the primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. But of course OBAMA people deny they did any thing wrong.  That seems to be the trend for all Obama fans.  His PAC Also (and I am quoting) sloshed $698,000 to the campaign of the superdelegates according to the center for responsible politics. Obamas hype comes from exaggerating his power and virtues.
The media and OBAMA worshipers have been hypnotized by his eloquent speeches and the symbol of his life story which brings delusions that OBAMA is engaged in the nations major problems which he isn’t. People
“Ted Kennedy” say OBAMA REMINDS THEM OF JFK.  TAYLOR BRANCH, says of the Kennedy administration more was required than JFK delivered and had he not been assassinated
it would have been more obvious.
Bobby Kennedy did the leg work for civil rights and the clout of LBJ got the CIVIL RIGTS ACT passed.
Now don’t go off believing I am a Kennedy basher as that is NOT true, they have sacrificed dearly for this country.
I just do not believe OBAMA has the soul, strength , knowledge, or experience to face the GIGANTIC OBSTACLES we have ahead of us. 
I am tired of writing but there are more shitty deals that are going to come up when the Repubs get ahold of him.
On ABC interview OBAMA sayes his wife would not use his experience as hers.  Who in his campaign thinks up this kind of pettiness.This is their way of diverting the real questions he should be talking about. His rhetoric and agenda are miles apart but the media also gives him a pass.
Monday OBAMA was telling everyone to go out and vote Tuesday (which they probably did) WHY ??? Because Thursday in the debate and he knows he can not keep up with Hillary.  But you OBAMA freaks love to go to his trough and drink the water. Good luck to you .

Ku Klux Klan
Endorses Obama

KENTUCKY - USA - Imperial Wizard, Ronald Edwards has stated that, “anything is better than Hillary Clinton.” White Christian Supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan has endorsed Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States of America.

Speaking from his Kentucky office in Dawson Springs, the Imperial Wizard exclaimed that anything or anyone is better than having that “crazy ass bitch” as President.

This is the first time in Klan history that any member of the KKK has ever publicly supported an African American candidate for the presidency.

KKK lodges all over America have been gathering and holding rallies supporting the black presidential candidate.

Grand Turk Cletus Monroe has also been very vocal about the election and has donated thousands of dollars to Obama’s election fund.

“The boy’s gonna do it. My Klan group has donated up to $250,000 to the Obama fund. Anything is better than Hillary Clinton. Hell I’ll even adopt a black kid from Africa before I vote for Hillary.”

“A few years back we were lynching negroes. Now we’re gonna vote for one to be president of the US of motherfu**ing A, damn it! Anyone or anything is better than Hillary Clinton - anything!!”

Placards for Barack Obama have been put up around the Klan’s Headquarters and the KKK have announced a television ad campaign to support the African American candidate.

Source: http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227

Hillary tickles my spine like finger nails on a chalk board, but your arguments are so enlightened, I have to think not.

If I want experience I will vote for Chaeney. You are right Hillary is entitled to become president, because she has waited and plotted and planed this from the day she left the Whitehouse with Billo.

Talk about hook line and sinker?

Obama took Hillary’s plan but makes it sound better, you mean, sort of like his voting for the war.

Should have said filibuster-proof.

Obama’s resume is short, but clean, and better than Hillary’s. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, whereas Hillary is a centrist, DLC Democrat.  He made a prescient speech against the Iraq war in 2002 when Hillary was voting for it. My estimate of his political abilities based on having observed him since 2004 is that they are outstanding, the best I have ever seen, better than Bill Clinton (who was his age when he became President). I like Bill and Hillary, but as a strong liberal I would rather see an Obama presidency than a third Clinton term.

I enjoyed both links. To show you how objective and non-partisan I am, I liked the one you said was for Hillary supporters the most. I say we Obamaphiles should take some time to catch our breath and do some reality checking, now that we are ahead. Just how is Barack going to be able to make these transformative changes? No matter if it’s him or Hillary, it sure will help if the Democrats get a veto-proof majority in Congress.

Really, I have seen Matthews be as vicious toward Clinton supporters as he was toward this Obama supporter. As to whether he is a “right-winger”, isn’t this term relative to where one is standing? He’s got some kinds of right wing Catholic anti-Communist characteristics, but he has some liberal and even anti-war instincts too. He was a speech writer for Jimmy Carter and he worked with Tip O’Neal so his background is Democratic. He’s an infuriating bastard, but I still find Hardball more interesting than the other skanky shows, better than anything on Fox or CNN.

The point is, Mathhews is really not that partisan. He savaged this particular Obama supporter just for the fun of it. I heard this afternoon that the poor guy admitted that he just froze like a deer in the headlights when Matthews attacked him. He promises to be better prepared next time. Matthews had a more prepared Obama spokesman on today to answer the same questions about Obama’s accomplishments. He said he also invited Watson back. There are really no hard feelings all around - except yours. And that’s not such a good thing.

Matthews has some kind of extra-special professional-quality skankiness that appeals to my quirky taste.

I thought the Obamaphiles here would appreciate this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/world/asia/19japan.h tml?sq=onishi&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=print

And the Hillary supporters will almost certainly agree with this (though the Obamaphiles might want to read it as well):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19brooks.htm l?sq=brooks&st=nyt&scp=5&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Sorry Tony, I disagree.  Matthews is absolutely a right winger and he has some kind of penchant for Sen. Clinton that’s for sure.  Why didn’t he DEMAND the same of the Clinton supporter as he did the Obama supporter?

Possibly Tony you’ve been watching Hardball for too long and have lost your sense of objectivity.  If you like partisan politics, Hardball’s just one of the many skanky shows available.

I have been watching Hardball for many years and I would not say Matthews is biased either for or against Clinton. Nor would I call him a “right-winger”. In this case, Matthews and Tubbs made the state senator from Texas look like an idiot. Which maybe he is, or maybe he just wasn’t prepared.

I’ve seen interviews of Paul Krugman, his mock debates and read a lot of his material. I’m not saying he’s wrong on everything, but he is a bit of a party-pusher. I’m always skeptical of his motives.

The Teamsters have endorsed Obama.  More of the working class seems to be getting on board with him.  Some of them may be settling a score with the Clintons over NAFTA.  Perhaps triangulation wasn’t quite as clever as the Clintons thought.

Aegrus:

“Paul Krugman is a loose cannon.” C’mon.

Here is a brief bio: “Paul Krugman majored in economics as an undergraduate at Yale University. He earned a Ph.D. from MIT in 1977 and taught at Yale, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University before joining the faculty of Princeton University, where he has been since 2000.  From 1982 to 1983, he spent a year working at the Reagan White House as a staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers. He is also a member of the international economic body, the Group of Thirty.”

As for his “support” of Hillary, the only columns I have ever seen from him that “support” Hillary are those specifically critical of Obama’s health care plan (and I read the NYT Op-Ed page every day).  In this regard, simply being an economist who criticizes Obama’s plan does NOT make him a Hillary “supporter.”

Another highly respected economist who is critical of Obama’s plan is Jonathan Gruber: “Jonathan Gruber is a professor of economics at MIT and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.  Gruber is known for his research on the areas of public finance and health economics. He is a co-editor of the Journal of Public Economics, and an Associate Editor of the Journal of Health Economics.  In 2006, he received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. He was elected a member of the Institute of Medicine in 2005.”

A third person supporting Hillary’s plan over Obama’s is Regina Herzlinger, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard: “Professor Herzlinger was the first woman to be tenured and chaired at Harvard Business School.  She is widely recognized for her innovative research in health care, including her early predictions of the unraveling of managed care and the rise of consumer-driven health care and health care focused factories, two terms that she coined.  Money Magazine dubbed her the “Godmother” of consumer-driven health care.

Hardly three know-nothings with agendas.

Peace.

RE: By Tony Wicher, February 20

It not NEWS that Chris Matthews has “a thing” for Clinton, remember the little touchy feely thing between them a while back.

I’ve put the video link to this interchange below.  Watch it again.

Clinton’s supporter is NEVER asked to NAME Clinton’s “LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS”.  Matthews asks the Clinton supporter for Clinton’s “unique selling point” and NEVER asks her to name an accomplishment.  She responds with the generic “experience and accomplishments” funny, she doesn’t NAME any.  She then goes on to talk about
what Clinton has “worked on”.  Such as, Sen. Clinton had worked on health-care, she’s worked on education, she’s worked on bringing jobs to Americans and on and on.  Well...I’m curious what has she ACCOMPLISHED LEGISLATIVELY...?  What has Sen. Clinton ACCOMPLISHED on education, health-care, jobs?  The woman is married to Mr. Nafta himself.

Afterwards, Matthews questions the Texas senator, and does ask the same question.  However, when the man answers it, Matthews doesn’t ACCEPT that answer.  The senator was absolutely ANSWERING THE QUESTION he was asked.  At that point, Matthews turns the tables and starts DEMANDING answers to questions he didn’t require of the Clinton supporter.

Matthews’ scummy right wing tactics are old hat.  He likes Clinton because they are both corporate hacks.

Why didn’t Matthews ask the Clinton supporter why Clinton was THE ONLY SENATOR NOT VOTING on the recent FISA LEGISLATION?  Obama voted to protect Americans and NOT grant immunity to the telecoms.

Clinton on the other hand was NOT there to protect Americans and demand justice for the illegal spying leveled against businesses and Americans by the Bush administration with the illegal help of the telecoms.
And conspicuously THE ONLY ONE not to show up.  By NOT casting her vote she reveals to where her allegiance lie.

Watch it again:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=60770285318971 14489&q=obama+supporter+chris+matthews&total=6& start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I really wouldn’t call that event an embarrassment. It’s really the whole point of Barack’s campaign and the establishment wanting to discredit his merit. There is a lessening trust in the old establishment, so these criticisms about his experience and achievements are of negligible validity.

There are only two requirements to be president of the United States of America. These prerequisites are being a citizen who is over the age of thirty-five. Both of these earmarks are met by Barack Obama.

Political experience is heavily desired by the Washington establishment, but is of scant use to the American voter. Barack’s eight years as a state senator is valid political experience by any measure, and it’s localized enough to actually have merit to the average American.

More important to the future of America are ideas. We are a nation built on ideas. Barack has the better platform here first and foremost. Whether or not it will hold up in his presidency can be questioned, but it should be apparent he has good character and most legislation has to be passed through congress anyway. Neither candidate can guarantee their plans will come into fruition through a fickle and partisan congress.

Additionally, consider how Obama’s message is about empowering we the people. This is not an establishment campaign slogan. There are people who are afraid of a more politically tuned American public. Whether or not Barack can succeed in passing great health care or energy initiatives becomes less his issue than our responsibility. That is a message long needed from a political candidate.

Achievements? How about being able to campaign better, stay on a more-focussed message and succeed at dethroning a candidate thought to be inevitably nominated? Hillary’s campaign is about her power, and Barack’s is about our power. That is the difference, and that is why Hillary is losing. Everything we want to achieve will fall into line once Americans are emboldened enough to demand it be done.

Barack is the only one demanding us to act. A vote for Obama is not a vote for his presidency, but for American power in government again. This is the fact. Barack could be lying about all his campaign promises, but with an empowered public… it doesn’t seem likely he is.

Paul Krugman is a loose cannon. His personality, partisanship and loyalty to Hillary Clinton should be made aware. He has offered some good reading material, but is largely a Democratic partisan and avid Clintonite. Moreover, one has been named, where are the several?

I’m not intending to be rude or brash, but we get enough people making false statements when commenting on these articles at TruthDig. At least Maani can provide some kind of logical evidence to support his/her (shrugs) opinions. It is important to avoid accidentally exaggerating claims or making skeptical ones ad nauseum.

Most of your post had a point, so I didn’t write you off as a troll. The first statement is false, though, and anyone saying Hillary’s health care plan covers everyone and Barack’s leaves out fifteen million Americans is perpetuating a false and speculative talking point.

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but healthy self-criticism is in order. Score one for Hillary.
I saw this myself live on MSNBC and it was pretty pathetic.

The interview in question was with Tubbs Jones and Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson on MSNBC Tuesday night. Host Chris Matthews asked Watson, a supporter of Obama, to name the Illinois senator’s chief legislative accomplishments.

“Well, I am not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishment,” Watson said.

Asked if it was a problem he was unable to name any of Obama’s accomplishments, Watson said, “Well no I don’t think it is. Because I think one of the things that Sen. Obama does is he inspires. He’s able to lay out a vision, he’s able to lay out solutions.”

The Clinton campaign called the interview “Must See TV,” and e-mailed a clip of it to reporters Wednesday morning — shortly before the New York Democrat mentioned it in her speech.

Leefeller:

Didn’t see it, so I have no idea what you are talking about…

Peace.