Grow up.

No, we aren’t.  Some of us make more than $30K a year and want to keep more of that money for ourselves and our families, and not have it forceably taken from us and given to parasites.

Very old adage here Bert.

• Don’t assume so often - it only makes an ass (out of) u (and) me.

But, it doesn’t apply in this case. Mostly it’s used in pedagogical types of relationships..parent to child, teacher to student, coach to team members..that sort of thing. And, that’s just not what’s happening here. Nope, not at all.

I can’t make an ass out of you, because you seem perfectly capable of that yourself, as most of us are, if we aren’t conscientious about it. And, there is definitely no team or other type relationship between you and I.

But, I DO agree with you about the dangers of ‘assumption’. You say: “Don’t assume so often”, but I’d take it further, and say –NEVER assume’ or at least that one should avoid it as often as is practical.

Still, at least a measure of ‘assumption’ is present in all of our thinking. We have a legal term for it that I won’t bog you down with, but scientists and the rest of us work with a basic set of pre-determined assumptions every day. We assume that the sun will rise and set, every day. (or revolve, if you prefer). So, there are of course some assumptions that we all make.

I’ll admit however, that ‘assuming’ you to be a male, just because you use the screen name ‘bert’ should NOT have been one of them. In all honesty, I did wonder a while back, (albeit it very briefly) about the name, because you made a comment painting a broad brush allegation of sexism, that seemed peculiar coming from a male.

But, I didn’t ponder on it for more than a half second. There is actually another poster here, who claims at least to be a male, and he frequently pins every single thing that anybody says about Hillary Clinton, in terms of rabid sexism. In other words, if somebody doesn’t like the fact that Hillary voted for an illegal war of aggression, he says they’re just sexist. My patience with that mentality is no better than my patience with the mentality that a few black people use, to blame absolutely everything that happens to them on racism. It’s like there’s just gotta be something ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ in every single exchange that they engage in, with anybody else in the world.

Yeah, sometimes these things are certainly the fundamental issues, and sometimes, they just are not.

It’s almost always unfortunate, when folks can’t tell the difference.

Meantime, you can be an ass on your own, and take full responsibility for it, and not feel the least bit accountable if I do the same.

I’m not sure of the answer to this Jackpine. As far as I know, there’s just Ohio/Pennsylvania/Texas still to come. I could be missing somebody, but it wouldn’t be intentional.

But, it brings up another question, that I have myself, and I’m wondering if anybody might know how this works.

A Michigan friend mentioned today, that American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands had been able to ‘vote for whomever they wanted’ while we know that Michigan and FLorida democrats were restricted. (in Michigan, only Hillary’s name was on the ballot, and so the choices for Democrats there was either her, or ‘uncommitted’) Apparently, more candidates were on the ballot in Florida, OR..they allowed write-ins, which Michigan did not. (I’m not sure which. I just remember that rowdy said he voted for Gravel in the Florida primary).

But, my question is this, since Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands are not actually ‘states’ but rather US territories, I’m not sure how their votes are ‘weighted’ in the primary or general elections. It SEEMS like they should have the same weight, but I don’t honestly know. I suppose I could start looking it up. So, if anyone knows off the top of their heads, it would be interesting.

Just out of curiosity...how many posters still have a primary or caucus to vote in?

As for the ‘stifling of debate’ by Obama supporters and/or what you call ‘Hillary Bashers”, I didn’t respond because it’s a stupid statement. And, I’m not being sarcastic, I’m being honest. Maani, there is nobody on this blog that has ‘the power’ to STIFLE DEBATE. The administrators (of the site) could do that if they were of the mind or inclination to do that. They haven’t. Nobody else can ‘stifle’ the debate, since for the most part, people write whatever they want on these blogs.

How YOU (or any of us) choose to interpret any of it, and/or personalize or rationalize it to suit your own perceptions or whatever, is how YOU choose to do it, and there’s nothing wrong with that, at least in how it affects the discourse of the whole.

Still, YOU cannot define the terms of discourse in a public forum, based on how YOU think that people should speak or otherwise ‘behave’. The blog isn’t a ‘club’ Maani. It’s open to the public. It’s not an Ann Landers or Miss Manners column.

it seems like I’ve brought this up before, a few dozens times, even long before bert so patronizingly accused me of the same…IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. It’s not about ME. It is not PERSONAL, Maani. It is a BLOG on a public forum. And, I’ve told you before, it’s NOT a flippin’ COMPETITION, which is how you have chosen to view your own participation.

Rather, these are OPINIONS. You can agree or disagree with any of them, and make your case accordingly. But, that’s all it is. What you’ve attempted to do, is to step into an ongoing conversation between dozens and dozens of readers/posters with access to the WWW, and to start assigning ‘rules of engagement’. YOU DON’T HAVE THAT POWER, anymore than anyone else has the ‘power’ to stifle debate.

So, all of this talk of humility and the demanding of apologies (from me or anyone else) and the inherent personal BADGERING that underlies it all, is inappropriate. We don’t have a ‘relationship’ here Maani.

Yes, common courtesy and decency should certainly prevail in a perfect world, and my own observations suggest that most adults on this blog, pretty much police themselves fairly well. Again, that is my own opinion.

Otherwise, I’m NOT ‘politically correct’ Maani, and I haven’t appointed myself as a sandbox coordinator on a school yard to make sure that all of the kids ‘play nice’.

I PERSONALLY have NOT ‘bashed Hillary’, and I have no guardianship over anyone who does.

I have multiple personal reasons for participating in this forum myself. One is that I LEARN a great deal from the articles, and probably even MORE from the comments by the public at large. I need not agree with any of them, to LEARN from them, but quite often, I do agree. (that is secondary to the point though) These public spaces are helpful for anyone who may have been, (or still might be) confined, at least in terms of extended discourse, to a narrow-minded ‘group think’. It’s a big world Maani, and not all people think alike. It’s helpful to know how/what others think, and why.

If I come across as ‘sarcastic’ it’s an interpretation of yours or maybe others. I’m more inclined to think of it as ‘irreverent’ because I’m not a ‘conformist’. I’m NOT likely to ‘conform’ to your or anyone else’s expectations of a code of behavior, and for that reason, I don’t demand or otherwise expect it from anyone else. Still, if you say something that I think is stupid, I’m as likely as not to respond accordingly, and say that it’s stupid…at least in my OWN opinion. YOU (or anyone else) can take that as you choose.

And, even if somebody DID tell you to ‘shut up’ it hasn’t happened. So, no stifling of any debate.

While I appreciate your comments, what is most interesting to me are the comments I made that you did NOT respond to.  You ignored my initial comment (re agreeing with McCain, and your accusations in this regard), as well as my following comment about the attempts by the Obama supporters and or Hillary-bashers here to stifle debate not only via name-calling, accusation and invective, but by flat-out telling some of us to “shut up” - something that you yourself have said to ME (and others) on a number of occasions?
Do you have enough humility in you to admit your error in both of these regards, and to actually give an honest (not sarcastic) apology for them?
Hi Maani,

Believe it or not, I actually began the last post, with a response to your first question here. THEN, it got so long, (after I finished what I DID post) that I chopped it up, intending to post it in 2 parts. So, here is the response to the first part, about ‘agreeing’ with McCain. It’s possible that I don’t get how there is an ‘agreement’ to be made, because I did actually read the entire circumstances surrounding what the media posted (NYT I believe is where I quoted from) as McCain’s 4 day harassment of Obama on the issue of public financing in the GENERAL ELECTION.

But, here it is…

I have to agree with you again…at least on this…

• “This is truly bizarre….”

“..  Do you mean to suggest that just beause a Republican said something about a Democrat that it cannot be true?  Or that I should not be able to agree with it without being a Republican myself?  What kind of logic is THAT?..”

It’s definitely bizarre.

Just because a Repug ‘said something about a democrate’? OK Maani…
Whatever you say big guy. I’ll just hang in there with my agreement. Very bizarre..

Remind me again what McCain “said about” Obama the Democrat. That’s what we were talking about right? “The Pledge” (sounds like the title of a Daniel Steel novel) Is that like DC’s ‘The Ring’?

Anyway, if you say that “The Pledge” is true, (and that Obama signed that ‘piece of paper’) Or, somebody ‘told’ him (McCain) that Obama signed a piece of paper, then hell, who am I to question it?  And of COURSE you should ‘agree’ with him, if you KNOW that “The Pledge” is true, and that Obama signed it, because somebody told John McCain that he signed it, and hey…there’s nothing wrong with you ‘agreeing’ with that.  Maybe you even have a copy of “The Pledge” with Obama’s signature on it.

Stay tuned for part 2 on the so-called stifling of debate.

#1 I am a woman.

#2 I have been to Crooks and Liars before. It was just this particular article and these particular links to other Clinton articles that I had not seen before.

Don’t assume so often - it only makes an ass (out of) u (and) me.

I’m not trying to be inflamatory. I’m just want to see if we can criticize each other’s candidates without getting angry.

Barackoblogger writes:

She cries.

She trots her husband out to defend her.

She talks about her husband’s record as though it were her own.
She counts her years as a wife to the President as “experience.”

She says, “Vote for me. I’m your girl!”

I’m sorry. I’m a 40ish woman and a feminist and I DON’T GET how Hillary is running as a feminist. I see her as running on sympathy, female votes, and very weak!
---------------------------------------------------
My comment:

Right, a lot of women have a strong attachment to her because she is a woman, which of course is understandable, but she is hardly the image of the totally liberated woman.
---------------------------------------------------

Cyrena:

While I appreciate your comments, what is most interesting to me are the comments I made that you did NOT respond to.  You ignored my initial comment (re agreeing with McCain, and your accusations in this regard), as well as my following comment about the attempts by the Obama supporters and or Hillary-bashers here to stifle debate not only via name-calling, accusation and invective, but by flat-out telling some of us to “shut up” - something that you yourself have said to ME (and others) on a number of occasions?

Do you have enough humility in you to admit your error in both of these regards, and to actually give an honest (not sarcastic) apology for them?

Peace.

Tony:

Thank you for this much more measured approach.  And like bert, I agree.  After all, it is unlikely that any of us is going to change the others’ minds.  But that should not make discussion/debate overly adversarial or combative.

Peace.

Well said, Tony and I agree 100%.

Maani, you write here:

• “..you are suggesting that a Democrat would vote for McCain over Obama, when MANY Obama supporters here (though not you) have stated unequivocally that they would vote for McCain over Hillary - or not vote at all.  Yet I have not heard you make ONE comment on THAT ridiculous, self-defeating mindset.

Yes Maani, I WAS suggesting that a Democrat, (in this case bert) would in fact vote for McCain over Obama. There are two reasons why I suspect this might be the case, not just with bert, (because I don’t know him) but with any number of other ‘so-called’ democrats.

1.  RACISM IS NOT DEAD! I PERSONALLY know people, who would simply NOT VOTE for a black person, regardless of gender. OK? That’s because Maani… this IS “America”! Study some history. AMERICAN HISTORY. That will explain it.

2.  IDEOLOGY. This should be easier for you to understand, because it’s just as basic. It is the nature of the American voter, to vote for that candidate who most closely represents their OWN views, and their OWN interests. This is not complicated Maani. It’s very much the nature of US politics in general.

So, you can rant and rave all you want, about how Hillary is the victim of sexism, but I’m not buying it. She’s the victim of HERSELF, (not to mention her big mouth loose cannon of a husband). And, the timing isn’t good for her, in part because of the IDEOLOGY that her brand of democratic politics represents.  In other words, if all was right with America and the world, and everybody was just doing peachy-keen, and living it up, and enjoying life in “America the Beautiful” or America the Great, then Hillary would no doubt sail right through, and be elected to the highest office in the land.

And, if that were the case, Barak Obama WOULDN’T EVEN BE RUNNING!

Back to number 2. There ARE STILL some democrats who belong to that old status quo right wing of the Democratic party. Hillary represents their interests in the SAME WAY that John McCain does. So, while I know that I’ve said this all before, here it is again: THERE IS LITTLE DIFFERENCE between the McCain brand and the Hillary brand. For a democrat who leans to that center-right ideology, McCain will be a closer fit for them. That’s just the way it is. It is NOT rocket science. It doesn’t even require any deep thought.

Hillary’s political ideology is NOT a deep dark secret. Her politics are inevitably connected to her husband’s politics, and it’s not a secret that he was the President of the US from 1992-2000? WERE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?

Did I have any personal troubles as a result of the policies and ideologies of Clinton Admin? Not really. Not then anyway. And, I thought Bill was brilliant. Actually, I still do. I’ve heard him speak a number of times, and he’s a smart guy.  However, he was/is STILL a centrist, who has and does represent the interests of the status quo oligarchy, and SO DOES HILLARY.

That’s why your confiscated quote you is WRONG!

• “if Obama was a woman (black or white) he would have ZERO chance of becoming president with his current resume.”

Let’s get real Maani. If the American people were all that into examining the resumes of white candidates, (male or female)GEORGE W BUSH would NEVER have been elected the first time, let alone the second time.

Barak Obama’s ‘resume’ is up for such close scrutiny BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, and doesn’t have a ‘connection’ to the political dynasty. Hillary’s ‘resume’ is up for scrutiny because she’s relied so heavily on it, and a closer look at it shows it to be.. the same old thing. And in the balance, it isn’t ‘all that much’ anyway.

To recap, it’s not about sexism, other than to the extent that some old dog dems would vote for a repug male over a woman, just as some of the same will vote for a repug white male over a democratic black one.

The reason you haven’t heard me address this the rest of your accusation, is that I’ve never heard/read any Obama supporters make such a claim.

Thanks Bert!
• “My dear, dear cyrena. It’s not always about you; or even only about you. I don’t even know what your question to Maani was….

I feel SO much better now. (Seriously, I do). I absolutely HATE it when ANYTHING is EVER ‘about ME’!  Must be because I’m so shy.

Still, thanks for putting my name in this time, so I wouldn’t be soooo “confused.” I was confused. Maybe I still am, since you had all of the accusations of name calling and arrogance. I’ve been reading these comments for a long time, and I honestly don’t remember Tony Wincher ever DOING any name calling, or displaying any arrogance. Of course I have indulged in the name-calling from time to time, but not him.

But the arrogance thing? Like the suggestion that it must always be about me? Here again, that’s pretty much in the eyes of the reader and the interpreter. Not EVERYBODY reads ‘arrogance’ the same way, just like nobody else, (including me) thinks that anything
is “always about’ or ‘only about’ me.  That seems to be YOUR idea, not anybody else’s.

So, I’ll just take that as the intended insult that it was, in the patronizing temperature that you served it. I’m not confused on that.

I guess that means it’s actually all about YOU dude! You take yourself so VERY, VERY, seriously. I’m just not sure anyone else does.

More from your latest lecture:

• This election is not some Big Brother or Survivor TV show where people are paid huge sums of money to hurl insults at each other and vote contestants off and on the show. You and several others appear not to really want to engage in serious debate and give and take on the issues, but seem to use this blog, and other blogs, as some juvenile, junior high school Slam Book for entertainment purposes and mere fun.

I’m pretty clear on what this and all other elections are supposed to be about, as well as what they often ARE about. I don’t have a single CLUE as to what a Big Brother TV show is about, though I remember sitting though an episode of that “Survivor”, at least 7 years ago. (I was just being sociable at the time. I RARELY watch TV)

And, if others (and I) don’t ‘appear’ to engage in serious debate, then I can only repeat myself; that would be in the eyes of the beholder. These ‘others’ and I suspect that we ARE engaged in serious debate, even WITHOUT the proverbial sticks up our asses!

Is THAT what is required before one can be viewed as engaging in serious debate? I think I’ll pass. Nope, there’s no amount of money that you can pay me to engage in any debate that has such a painful pre-requisite.

Now, as for what you consider my ‘rambling and hard to follow posts’ there is an INSTANTANEOUS solution to that…(and not the least bit painful…so you don’t even have to have your stick in place). Its so simple, you’ll wonder why you never thought of it…

DON’T READ THEM!

Here’s how you do it: as soon as you see my name, you just rapidly scroll right through until you come to the next name. Try it. You’ll be delighted with the results. I promise.

As for those “others” who use this blog (and other blogs you say) for mere fun and entertainment, I can’t help you there. I don’t post on other blogs, and I don’t keep up with the jr high or HS crowd. I stay busy enough answering to the University crowd to earn my keep.

Still, that same technique might work. For instance, maybe you should just stop reading and posting on blogs. Stick with Survivor and Big Brother. Then you wouldn’t have to put up with all of this nonsense and juvenile behavior, and these atrocities of ‘mere fun’.

I’m starting think you haven’t been in this ‘blogging thing’ for long. Had you really never heard of the ‘crooks and liars’ web site?

Nevermind...don’t answer that.

I can understand bert or Maani thinking Clinton is the best. Cyrena and I like Obama. I presume we are all Democrats, and will support the Party nominee. I will. I think we should be mature enough to advocate for our candidate without undue acrimony.

OK, you have a point. I would say that if McCain agrees to the plan Obama says he proposed in Feb 2007, Obama will have to accept it, and if he doesn’t he will be acting like any other unprincipled politician. He certainly is committed to entering discussions with McCain at this point. If they do agree, it will be good for American politics. But they will also have to talk about other issues such as 527’s and other ways of getting around McCain-Feingold.

My dear, dear cyrena. It’s not always about you; or even only about you. I don’t even know what your question to Maani was.

I was responding to Tony. His post right above mine asked if Maani and I were real Democrats or not. So I answered him.

I put your name in the comment title block so that you would not be confused this time.

And I am not insulated you don’t support Hillary. My purpose here is not to promote either Hillary or Obama. I simply try and use facts instead of half-facts, half-truths, and raw emotion to sort things out. I just hope that folks who think Obama is NOT a politician wake up before the election. He is after all mortal, and he is just a politician like the rest. To get where he is today he has to be a politician.

In your rambling, hard to follow posts you repeatedly use words like, “tease,” and “for entertainment purposes.” Well, my dear, I don’t think electing the President of the United States is a game. Ever. But especially this year as the survival of the greatest experiment in self rule and this government’s Constitution are at stake.

This election is not some Big Brother or Survivor TV show where people are paid huge sums of money to hurl insults at each other and vote contestants off and on the show. You and several others appear not to really want to engage in serious debate and give and take on the issues, but seem to use this blog, and other blogs, as some juvenile, junior high school Slam Book for entertainment purposes and mere fun.

That is sad.

If Americans were as non-racist as you think, you’d have seen more non-whites running for office. 

In over two hundred years, there has been one Catholic President.  The rest have been WASPs.

Both Barack and HRC have the same problems during the general election.  Neither are white male.  Other common problems will be the voter caging, voter intimidation, and voting machine problems.

Bert/Lib:

Thank you.

Cyrena/Tony et al:

“...because this is the first time (that I have noted myself at least) when [Maani has] taken up the Swift-boat tactic as generated by the repuglican side of the competition. In short, this latest attack based on the public financing was initiated by the presumed nominee for the repugs!  John McCain.”

This is truly bizarre.  Do you mean to suggest that just beause a Republican said something about a Democrat that it cannot be true?  Or that I should not be able to agree with it without being a Republican myself?  What kind of logic is THAT?

It is really of a piece with what Bert (and others) have alluded to, and I have now seen since I got here: that the Obama supporters have attempted - through continual name-calling, insult, denigration, accusations, mean-spiritedness and outright telling anyone who dares criticize Obama or his “movement,” or support Hillary to “shut up” - to stifle debate.  This is NOT American.

Indeed, this is borne out by your comment that “Maani, who has for many weeks now, frequently been at the head of the pack on the attacks against Obama...” You seem to be unable to separate “criticism” from “attack.” Simply because I criticize Obama, or his positions, or offer researched information that happens to be critical of Obama, does NOT mean I am “attacking” him.  I do have problems with him and his campaign, and with the way he is being covered by the MSM (and much of the AM).  I do not believe him to have the knowledge and experience to back up his admittedly inspiring rhetoric (which does NOT mean he does not have ANY experience...), I do not believe he is any less a puppet of the transnational corps than is Hillary (since ALL politicians are), I do not believe he is any less complicit in questionable campaign contributions, I do not believe his positions on the issues (and indeed, on as MANY issues) are as solid as Hillary’s, I do not believe he he will be any better able to work with Congress than Hillary (and, indeed, I believe she has a MUCH better record in this regard), I do not believe that he does not have skeletons in his closet that the GOP will take full advantage of (and newer and fresher skeletons than Hillary does, and thus more able to gain traction), and I do not believe he will be in any way a more EFFECTIVE president than Hillary; i.e., any more able to get his policies turned into law or action, or interact with world leaders re peace, trade, and other international affairs.

As I quoted (from someone else) on another thread: if Obama was a woman (black or white) he would have ZERO chance of becoming president with his current resume.

Finally, you say to Bert, “So, it you have a choice between Obama and McCain, and if I was putting money on this (for entertainment purposes of course) I’d guess you’d vote for McCain. (based on your rant here).”

Setting aside that you must be willfully ignorant to make a comment like this after all she said, this statement reeks of the worst type of hypocrisy I have seen yet.  Because you are suggesting that a Democrat would vote for McCain over Obama, when MANY Obama supporters here (though not you) have stated unequivocally that they would vote for McCain over Hillary - or not vote at all.  Yet I have not heard you make ONE comment on THAT ridiculous, self-defeating mindset.

The more you and other use name-calling, invective, denigration and attempted outright silencing to try to make your case for Obama, the more you prove to those of us who support Hillary that you have been “brainwashed” by the Obama-as-Christ movement to the point that anyone who DARES criticize it is demonized.

How can supporters of a man who calls for inclusion, tolerance and an end to demonizing be SO exclusive, intolerant and demonizing?  What a bunch of sycophantic toadies.

Peace.  (Maybe...)

What article are you refering to?

I was citing a letter written to Obama from these groups: Campaign Legal Center - Common Cause - Democracy 21 -League of Women Voters - Public Citizen - U.S. PIRG

In the letter these campaign finance reform groups were urging Senator Obama to reaffirm the commitment he made last year (while still an underdog and not the leader in campaign fundraising) to use the public financing system if he gets the Democratic nomination and if his Republican opponent also agrees to use public financing in the General Election

In this letter the aforementioned reform groups urged Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) to personally make clear to citizens that he remains committed to using the public financing system (per the quote I cited and is a direct quote from his written response to aforementioned reform groups questionnaire) in the presidential general election if he is the Democratic nominee and if the Republican nominee also agrees to use the public financing system in the general election.

So far Obama has been hedging on reaffirming his written statement. This even though he says he is the chnage agent and wants to bring a new order to Washington. Sounds like just another politician to me, Mike.

All McCain is doing is sowing the character seed should Obama be the nominee by making it an issue now. And it has become an issue in several papers including, but not limited to: The Washington Post, buckeyestateblog (Ohio), New Yoyk Times, the AP, even Fox News has started in on the issue.

Interesting rant here Bert. Or are you Maani with shades of a Chalmers meltdown?

And, who exactly is your diatribe directed at? You don’t include any names, but since it at least appears to be in response to my question to Maani, who has for many weeks now, frequently been at the head of the pack on the attacks against Obama, I guess it’s directed at me.

But his attacks have been situated in the framework of the internal race between Democrats. In other words, it could reasonably be said that the attacks are from, as Tony put it so well “The Right-Wing of the Democratic Party”.

So MY question, -TO MAANI- (not YOU) was part of an on-going communication, admittedly tinged with a poke of sarcasm, because this is the first time (that I have noted myself at least) when he’s taken up the Swift-boat tactic as generated by the repuglican side of the competition. In short, this latest attack based on the public financing was initiated by the presumed nominee for the repugs!  John McCain. So, that was a slight departure from the standard for Maani, because up to now, he’s generated most of his attacks on Obama from an internal view. Matter of fact, he (and others of course) has followed the prediction of another poster several months ago, (a staunch right-winger) when he said something to the effect of “The repuglicans won’t have to do anything except sit back and WATCH THE DEMOCRATS ATTACK EACH OTHER!”

I knew as soon as I read it, (with dread in my heart) that he was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Since then, Maani at least, (again…among others including you) have done exactly that. Now you’ve obviously missed all of that; which is why you apparently missed a similar rant from Maani some weeks back, when he explained this same long and drawn-out Democratic Party ancestry/political genealogy. 

You make a point though, that it really wasn’t anybody’s ‘business’, nor (I suppose) did anybody much care. Just as I don’t care about yours. HOWEVER, since he had ‘offered up’ this passionate affiliation to the Democrats, I was responding (in a semi-teasing manner) to his latest Obama attack, as having arisen from the Repuglican side of the race.

So, it wasn’t directed at YOU, at least not then. Obviously it is now though. Note your name at the top. There might be others that care about your rant here, and that you’re all insulted because we don’t support your candidate, and you suspect that we’re displaying all of this arrogance. I don’t really see it that way, but then…it’s all in the eyes/ears/minds of the beholders, eh?

Now, I couldn’t agree with you more, that it’s nobody’s damn business who you vote for in November, but I’d have to add that it is highly likely that NOBODY CARES! I think it’s possible that nobody cares who you WILL vote for, or who you HAVE voted for, or WHY. If I were to hazard a ‘guess’ for entertainment purposes, I would suspect that it would be John McCain, since the other ‘ideologically-based’ REPUPLICAN candidate, Hillary Clinton, will not win the Democratic nomination.

So, it you have a choice between Obama and McCain, and if I was putting money on this (for entertainment purposes of course) I’d guess you’d vote for McCain. (based on your rant here).

But, back to my own comment to Maani. I’m guessing that for him, (despite my slight tease) he’ll probably go ahead and vote for Obama in the general election, if he survives the heart attack from Hillary losing the nomination. Now that means that I have at least a slight measure of confidence in him, though it may be misplaced, and of course his ballot gets to be just as secret as yours and mine.

Now for ME at least, Barack Obama is NOT the ‘second coming’ because I’ve never acknowledged a ‘first coming’. And, it’s been decades since anybody attempted to tell me how to ‘act’ or what to ‘stop acting like’ and the attempts were NEVER successful. I don’t think yours will be either.

So, use your one vote wisely, and you don’t have to tell anybody how you use it.

Tony, your quote omits one key word. You omitted the word, “Yes.” It should go in front of the beginning of what you quote. In other words: “Yes.If I am the Democratic nominee....”

It did not take me long to research this. I found an entire timeline of who said what and when and why at the Democratic Underground website.

I did not copy the entire site. If interested I am sure people will go look for themselves.

From a letter to Obama - START QUOTE:
“Some nine months later you repeated the commitment in response to a questionnaire.

On November 27, 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of 20 civic and public interest groups based in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, released the results of a questionnaire that they sent to all of the presidential candidates.

The following question was on the questionnaire:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in presidential public financing system?

You answered this question as follows:

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

This commitment was made without any conditions and clearly stated, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.””
END QUOTE

Already McCain is making great political hay out of an apparent change of heart. This is the first salvo in the tearing down Obama by attacking his character. And some of you are saying he will be immune from attacks.

Think again. Or just plain think.

I am a Democrat. Not that it is any business of yours. Plus I don’t appreciate the intended slam.

And who ever said I or anyone else has to be in agreement with you and your views to be a Democrat? I didn’t realize there was a litmus test. Sounds pretty autocratic to me. And that is the antithesis of democratic and Democratic values, not to mention hope. Sounds like the ‘same old politics’ Obama rails against. Sounds pretty Bush like too. I have had enough of Bush’s ‘your way or the highway.’ I certainly am not going to put up with the same attitude from you or your ilk. Your questioning me and others on this blog who disagree with you and/or who have our facts straight and/or can make a cogent argument is about as arrogant as your chosen candidate and many of his supporters on this and other blogs. And even if I was a Republican are you saying Republicans can’t read this blog and respond? Again arrogance and anti democratic.

I come from a long line of Democrats. My maternal grandfather came to this country from Hungry. Now he knew from personal experience deep in his bones what it is like to live in a non-democratic country. The stories he told me about “the old country’ touched my heart deeply. He was a die hard Democrat. I remember when he had cataracts and as a junior or senior in high school in the early 60’s I had to take him to the polls to be his “eyes” when he voted. As I went down the list of candidates and read them aloud to him he always had one question -"Which one is the Democrat?” And that was the candidate he voted for. Franklin Roosevelt was a god to him.

My dad and his sisters were about as liberal and Democrat as they come. My mother as well. And my Godmother. We often used to talk politics round the dinner table. So I got my first taste of political awareness very early.

I have worked for JFK, RFK, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, I was elected delegate for Carter and worked his campaign, and worked for Bill Clinton. And like most Democrats I have some huge disappointments about his Presidency. But no matter what, he was he much better than what we have right now or could get in McCain. I was also a state and local Democratic Party member and was an elected Democratic Precinct Captain and worked the polls on several occasions as a Democrat. I worked on many local, county, and state Democratic campaigns as well.

But no matter how much I tell you about myself it will probably not appease you because what you want from me is total and complete loyalty to you and your candidate sans any and all debate. And that will never happen. Free and open exchange of ideas is what makes a democracy work. Anything short of that is not democracy.

Yes, I voted for Hillary in the primary. Again, it is none of your damn business who I will vote for in November. The secret ballot is sacred. But I will vote Democratic. I have voted many times for candidates I did not totally believe in, especially for President. And I can and will do it one more time if necessary.

Just stop acting and behaving as if your candidate is the second coming. And stop badgering me and others on this site who do not agree with you. And enough with the name calling. It is juvenile and does not belong on a blog that searches for the truth. It does not become you. It especially does not become Obama!

From The American Prospect blog:

“Obama’s precise statement was, and has always been, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” That’s an artful statement, and it’s not artful in a “meaning of ‘is’” sense—it’s exactly
the right answer. A commitment to “preserve a publicly financed election” would have to mean much more than whether both participate in the system. It would require some significant agreement about how to handle outside money, 527s, “Swift Boat"-type attack groups, party money, etc., and other factors that have undermined the last two publicly financed elections, from both sides.  It is hardly an evasion to describe this as an agreement to be negotiated, rather than a simple pledge.

The side story here is why many of the the “traditional” campaign finance reform advocates and the Times and Post editorial boards still seem so hynotized by McCain-as-reformer, a pose he adopted for a period that ended years ago, that they cannot call him on his evasion of public funds in the primary, and are happy to be used to echo his first partisan attack in the general election, against someone who, unlike McCain, really has been a remarkably consistent and hard-working supporter of public financing, at both the state and national level.”

I believe Obama may offer to have such negotiations with McCain. It will be interesting to see how that goes.

Link for rest of article: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?mont h=02&year=2008&base_name=would_you_make_a_pledge_wi th_t

As an old Howard Dean supporter, I proudly call myself a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Obama is the candidate of my wing. Bill Clinton was the Republican Lite president. He is about the same place on the political spectrum as Dwight Eisenhower. I voted for him twice because Eisenhower looks like a great president next to Nixon, Reagan or either Bush. But for a change I would like to have a real Democrat. Go Barack!

“Now Maani, who’s side are you on again? You’re a democrat, right?”

That’s what I am beginning to wonder about about bert and Maani. Are they even Democrats? If anyone is threatening to split the party, they are.

“QUESTION:  “.....will you participate in presidential public financing system?”

Obama’s answer: “Yes.....”

This is absolutely positively a clear and unambiguous answer.”
--------------------------------------------------
bert,

Those three dots, the ellipsis following the word “Yes” shows that you are taking the words out of context. What about the rest of the sentence?

Sure, McCain is going to go after him for supposedly breaking his “pledge”. But tell me, would you want to sign a petition to require Obama to accept federal matching funds even if he could raise a lot more money without accepting them and have a better chance of winning in November?

Cyrena,

You got a point. No use following him down into his schizophrenic morass. But I can hardly resist poking a little fun. Hm, maybe “The Ring” refers to the Lord of the Rings: “One Ring to rule them all, one Ring to find them, and in the darkness bind them”. Maybe he’s saying Obama reality Sauron.

I really don’t know what you are talking about. I have said over and over again for a year that I will support the democratic nominee. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in what I have said.

This was an EXCELLENT link. Lots of good information and more than one link to go to. I have not seen anything like this on the MSM. Thnaks for sharing.

You would think the Dems would have learned by now. But they just take a back seat when attacked by Rs.

I will say that in this the Rs are ably aided and abetted by the MSM. The best example of all this is when John Kerry was Swift Boated. The creators of the ad only had enough money to buy air time in a few key, swing states. But after the MSM played it over and over and over and over and over again ad infinitum/ad nauseum on newscasts just about every American in every state saw it at least once. That kind of FREE air time to the Rs is,well,priceless.

Alice says Dems should go for the truth. Nice sentiment, but totally ineffective in most campaigns. The truth is Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. But by the time Rs and the MSM got through attacking just about everyone in America believes he said that. Same for Kerry’s Purple Hearts. Lots of good the truth did there, Annie.

And those of you who think Obama will be immune to this, don’t count on it. I truly hope you are right. But I think not. The MSM LOVE John McCain. So they will turn on the Ds nominee once the convention is over in order to maintain their love fest with McCain.

Plus Dems seem never to have learned the importance of political theatre. The Rs have turned it into an art form.

I have to agree with lib in Texas. You do have a way with words, Maani. Well said.

Manni, That was beautiful!!!

Cyrena, do you imbibe with you 3 AM posts ???

Doug:

I would have to agree that a great lot of the Obama crowd have created a parallel universe for themselves, one in which hope substitute for logic: if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

Yet the more apt analogy might be that the heady and intoxicating fumes of Obama’s rhetoric apparently cause hallucinations in those who breathe too deeply, causing logic and common sense to disappear, giving his followers delusions of grandeur and temporary (we hope) blindness to the fact that the emperor has no clothes.

LOL.

Peace.

By cyrena, February 17: “...just watch out for the trolls that would grab your leg, and snatch you down into the horrors of the insanity...”

You can see where this “dabbling in insanity, the rabbit hole that Lewis Carroll was talking about, Alice in Wonderland, little trolls that hang around on the fringes...” has taken cyrena.

This IS cyrena’s nightmareland. This IS the parallel universe and alternative reality of urban America as it is perceived in the minds of “them colored folks”. And apparently the sewers in LA aren’t as big as the ones in NY???

Thus the familiar form of the reality that they know is merely based on the assumed belief that they are actually “carbon copies” of white folks. But that is really why they are black, ha ha.

So we come to the cult of The Ring and, seemingly, a way to get what they always wanted. Not just a black president but total control. Well, this must be a good thing if the politically-correct folks say so.

In actual fact, what you are getting is merely another rank legalist. Clever, yes, intelligent enough to make a pothole leading to a burrow that you might never climb out of. Where is your freedom?

It is like the farthest thing from any familiar form of reality although it is based on that which we know. However it is not based on the standard and normative sorts of predictors that sane people utilize.

Oh yes, The Ring WILL change you all. Trust me on this, uhh......

Tony,

I hate to tell you this, but responses like this (or almost any actually) just encourage him. I mean, he’ll keep posting all of this total insanity regardless, but if you go to the trouble of actually trying to look up stuff like “The Ring”, (or any other insanity that comes from DC) then it’s the same as accidentally stepping in a pot hole that is really a lead-in to the rabbit hole, and then you’ve gotta waste time digging out before you can get on along the path.

So, that’s just sort of a way to think about responding to anything from him, (and a few others that will go unmentioned). It’s like you’re on the path, and it’s full of potholes, that one can avoid easily enough, (at least in the daylight). But, there are always these little trolls that hang around on the fringes of the pot holes, waiting to grab a leg as you’re walking along the path of reason and reality, trying to get where you’re going.

Now the pot hole where they hang out, (or think of one of those big holes leading to the subterranean sewer or other system in a big city like NY). Well, that’s like the pre-entrance to the rabbit hole that Lewis Carroll was talking about, for Alice in Wonderland. Except of course, the Douglas Chalmers version is more like DC in nightmareland.

Still, it’s basically the same thing. It’s the now infamous parallel universe and alternative reality, and I’m telling ya, YOU DON’T WANNA GO THERE! (trust me on this). It is like the farthest thing from any familiar form of the reality that we know, based on the standard and normative sorts of predictors that sane people utilize.

So, just watch out for the trolls that would grab your leg, and snatch you down into the horrors of the insanity.

This dabbling in insanity, (by entertaining the likes of DC) is like experimenting with drugs. It’s like you think, ah, I won’t get hooked. And then, the next thing ya know, you’re as crazy as he is.

(so, maybe that’s a bit of a stretch..still, you get my point).

link to post @ Crooks & Liars

Well Tony, we might look at a bit more of the ‘statements’ actually MADE, and sort of the ‘surrounding’ circumstances that led up to this. I mean, in all practicality, we know that Maani does have a tendency to ‘cherry’ pick. So, a lot of stuff depends on who’s doing the interpretation of the ‘quotes’ and what they choose to include or exclude from the ‘surrounding context’

So, this is part of the story from the NYT, and the link to the rest

“OSHKOSH, Wis. — Hammering Senator Barack Obama for a fourth straight day, Senator John McCain said here on Friday that he expects Senator Obama to abide by his pledge use public financing for his general election if Mr. McCain does so as well.

“It was very clear to me that Senator Obama had agreed to having public financing of the general election campaign if I did the same thing,” he said after a town hall meeting here. “I made the commitment to the American people that if I was the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.”

Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.”

(The oldster was ‘told’ that Obama -signed a piece of paper-)

From the same article:

• “Mr. Obama did not rule out the possibility of accepting public financing, but declared on Friday, “I’m not the nominee yet.””

• “If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference in Milwaukee. “It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”

• Last year, Mr. Obama sought an advisory ruling with the Federal Election Commission to see whether the campaign could opt out of public financing in the primary and accept it in the general election. It was merely an inquiry, he said, not a pledge to accept the financing.”

This pretty much sums it up for me, in so far as ‘these are the facts as they stand now’.

Rather obviously I suppose, I would agree that it would be ‘presumptuous’, (though I would say downright STUPID – but Obama is simply far more diplomatic than I) for him to start marking promises or otherwise ‘locking’ himself into something that he doesn’t even know that the other side will agree to.

And, there’s the slightly less obvious component to that. They ARE still in the primaries, and if he DOES win the democratic nomination, how does he know that McCain won’t pull a Hillary, and “loan’ himself millions and millions of dollars, like SHE already has? (this early in the contest no less).

Hillary’s Curious Campaign Loan
http://consortiumnews.com/2008/020808.html

Now Maani, who’s side are you on again? You’re a democrat, right?

QUESTION:  “.....will you participate in presidential public financing system?”

Obama’s answer: “Yes.....”

This is absolutely positively a clear and unambiguous answer.

Pledge or not a pledge?????? Are we parsing words here or what? Sounds like old style politics to me.

He does the support the principal of public financing, Tony writes. I don’t read that anywhere in this quote.

By Tony Wicher: “The Ring” - that horror movie ... that kills you in seven days...”

Thanks, bert, for pointing out the obvious to TW who can see it but can’t understand it. He has been mezmerized by The Ring!

For those who haven’t quite got it, its the BO ring logo, uhh........

And I’ve changed Repug’s to Rpg’s because they are the rocket-propelled grenade which will finish things off in this election.

Oh, there will be a change all right......

By Tony Wicher, February 16: “That the Democratic nomination..... hope that Obama wins quickly so we can patch up our differences...”

You’ve just proven what Maani has pointed out out to you, TW. You haven’t a clue what you are babbling about any longer.

“The best man winning” in a contest between a MAN and a WOMAN??? This is how you describe a younger man insulting and attacking an older woman???

I don’t see any clear “pledge” reflecteded in any of your statements, TW. Its just the sheer arrogance of selfish expectations. My way, not your way!

And you hope it will all be over “quickly” so that every one can go back to sleep. That must be the ultimate sexist and ageist statement.

What you don’t seem to comprehend is that there already a “serious split” in the Democrats party. it won’t be healed and it won’t go away.

At the grass roots level, even families have been split along sex and age lines. They’re not just going to conveniently fall into line behind your BO pied piper as a result.

I don’t see any clear “pledge” expressed in the statement quoted. I know he does support the principle of public financing. It will be interesting to see how this goes.

So we have two weasels instead of one.  How nice.

Tony:

Are you even listening to yourself?  He “deserves” to be president because he was “successful in building a movmement?”

What on God’s great earth does that have to do with knowledge, experience, creating political (not just “people") consensus, governing skills, etc.?  What does “building a movement” have to do with the practical aspects of being president, either domestic or foreign?

You are truly losing it…

Peace.

That the best man is winning the Democratic nomination? You think Obama is going to be easy to slime? I don’t think it’s going to work this time. We will just have to see. In any case, the best thing you can do to prevent any serious split in the party from happening is to pledge your support to whoever wins the Democratic nomination, and hope that Obama wins quickly so we can patch up our differences and devote ourselves to beating the Republicans.

Obama can not only make a good speech, he has organized and built a movement, and in so doing, has proved his leadership abilities. If he continues to be successful in building the movement, he will be elected President because he deserves it. That is the way democracy at its best works. It makes me proud as an American to see the political process work as it is supposed to.

Doug,

I don’t even know what “The Ring” is, unless you are referring to that horror movie with the video that kills you in seven days. Please do enlighten me. I tried Googling it but I didn’t find anything.

Apparently, Obama is trying to weasel out of his pledge to use public financing for the general election campaign if he wins the nomination, and the Republican nominee agrees to it.  McCain has already agreed to uphold his pledge to do so, but Obama is now waffling.

In November 2007, he was asked: “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in presidential public financing system?”

His answer: “Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.”

However, in the past few days, Obama’s spokesperson had this to say: “[That idea was] something that we pursued with the FEC and it was an option that we wanted on the table and is on the table.” When asked about Mr. Obama’s earlier position, the spokesperson said, “No, there is no pledge.”

Hmmm…

You are exactly right Mr. Chalmers. Karl Rove could not be happier at this turn of events!!!!!

Tony said, “He has built and led a whole movement with consummate skill.  This proves his ability to handle the Presidency.”

Excuse me?  Your logic does not follow.  Just because someone can galvanize a “movement” around them does not equate with the ability to be president.  Ability to inspire is NOT the same as ability to govern.  In fact, the ability to inspire “the masses” (as positive as that may be) is not even the same as the ability to inspire either the Congress (with whom a president must work to get legislation and policy passed) or other world leaders (with whom a president must work re peace, trade, etc.).

As I recently saw written somewhere, “If Obama were a woman (either black or white), he would have zero chance of being elected president with his present credentials.”

I think that about sums it up.

Peace.

By Tony Wicher, February 16: “I think Obama is a political fighter… he packs a hell of a punch… I’m not saying it’s going to be easy to avoid stepping in Republican caca, but I think he has the guts and the political abilities to beat them...”

I want a winner too, believe me, TW, but you can’t see beyond your own precious paid position as a campaigner for The Ring.

Its no use fighting with your own. That is NOT winnning the election - it is killing your party’s chances. The Dems have set their two best people against each other as though they were nothing more than dogs.

That is a very primitive kind of stupidity but people seem to be entertained by the spectacle if not pleased by the bloodletting. The Rpg’s (and the uncaring media) must be enjoying it most of all, though.......

What you all are doing is merely stepping in your own “caca”. How is that winning the election? You are all being fooled! In fact, you two Dems camps are both being led like sheep into the slaughterhouse, uhh.

I think Obama is a political fighter. He can be so intellectual and etherial you hardly notice, but he packs a hell of a punch, as Bill Clinton found out in South Carolina. I’m not saying it’s going to be easy to avoid stepping in Republican caca, but I think he has the guts and the political abilities to beat them.

I am 62. I have not only been following politics for as long as you, I have been active in campaigns (JFK, RFK my first) and have even run some campaigns. I have been active in party politics as well. I have also seen what happened to George McGovern and Jimmy Carter and have tried to learn from those lessons. I know Obama supporters don’t like what Paul Krugman is saying these days, but there is much he writes that we should at least look at.

Originally I supported Russ Feingold, but he decided not to run. Then I was an Edwards supporter, Then Dodd, then Edwards again. When Edwards dropped out I was not sure who I would be for until I began seeing, reading, and hearing all of the misogynist and sexist remarks hurled at Clinton. As a woman who entered a male dominated profession in the late 60’s early 70’s I know what sexism looks like and how it sounds. With two equally matched candidates I decided to strike a blow for women and sexism.

However, the high pitched fever of many Obama supporters really has begun to scare me. Plus his inexperience against McCain will be exploited by the R smear machine. In 2004 most people were against the war. In 2004 most Americans were against most of what the Rs stood for (choice, stem cell research, etc.) Yet they voted for Bush.

I want a winner this time because this is more than just a run of the mill election. This election will determine the survival of the nation and of the Constitution. I am not 100% sure Obama has what it takes despite what is adoring throngs think.

Re By bert, February 16 at 10:28 am #
Re: Re: What’s Waiting for Obama........Hell
Tony writes:  The kind of political dirty tricks that worked on pusillanimous Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry will never work on him.

Ahhhhhhhh, the hubris of the young!!!!!!!!!!! Better to plan for the worst than to be caught with your underwear showing.
----------------------------------------------------
bert,

Are you older than I am?  I’m 61 and have been following politics since childhood, so I have a lot of political memory, and I tell you I have never seen anything like Obama. His political ability is outstanding. It’s not just a matter of being able to make good speeches. He has built and led a whole movement with consummate skill. This proves his ability to handle the Presidency, in fact the Presidency is the natural and fitting reward for such a display of ability. That is the way democracy at its best works.

Tony writes:  The kind of political dirty tricks that worked on pusillanimous Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry will never work on him.

Ahhhhhhhh, the hubris of the young!!!!!!!!!!! Better to plan for the worst than to be caught with your underwear showing.

I believe his mother was born there

Obama does have ties to Kansas. His maternal grandparents live there.

I am not too worried about Ahnold becoming President becasue to change the rules means changing the Constitution. Even if Congress attempts to do so, such a cahnge has to be ratified by two-thirds of the states, a very slow process at best. Hell, if we couldn’t get two-thirds of the states to ratify an amendment making sexism illegal who thinks changing this part of the Constitution would pass? I certainly don’t. This dovetails with a post on a different thread here about Eugene Robinson not knowing what sexism is. Yeah brother!!!!!!!!!

If you bury your head in the sand on these and other potentially damaging incidents you do so ay your own peril. Who would have ever dreamed a war hero would be smeared and brought down with purple band-aids?

No matter who is the nominee the Republicans will come after them. Don’t think your candidate is immune. A lie or half-truth goes around the world three times before the truth can even get its shoes on. If JFK were running today there would be attacks against him too. That is just the way the Rs do business. And they do it so very well.

So get prepared. Your ‘renaissance’ will be no protection. It wasn’t protection in the Age of Aquarious either. It won’t be now. Add inexpereince into the mix and Obama has real troubles ahead.

To me, Barack Obama is the political Muhammad Ali. He floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee. He KO’d Bill Clinton in South Carolina and he can do it again. When he gets through with McCain, we are all going to be feeling sorry for the old codger. The kind of political dirty tricks that worked on pusillanimous Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry will never work on him.

Cyrena:

Not sure where you get the “Kansas” thing.  He was born in Hawaii, stayed until age 6, moved to Jakarta, returned to Hawaai at 10, stayed through high school, went to college in California, then New York, then Chicago.

No Kansas.

Peace.