The fact that Sen McCain graduated from the US Nval Academy in 1958 in no way detracts from the statement that he graduated highschool in 1954/55 or 56.

The intent of just mentioning high school was to emphasize the cavalier comment he made of “staying in Iraq for another 100 years”. Your inference that I am pathetically uninformed is to say the least pathetically misinformed.

Well Rosemary, your plea is very passionate, and you’ve implored us all to THINK, at least half-dozen times or more, asking if we REALLY want to elect some new and/or unknown person to head up the operation of our government. (I’ve paraphrased a bit here).

Here’s the answer that the American public so far seems to have. YES!! That’s what we apparently want to do. Based on the primary elections and caucases so far across the nation, and from those Americans living abroad, WE WANT BARACK OBAMA.

And guess what else? Yep, Americans have actually done some serious THINKING about this. That leads me to find this statement from you as not only ironic, but proof of some arrogance (or maybe ignorance) on YOUR part.

• The arrogance for him to think that he will be able to change all of those Republicans minds with his charm.

Rosemary, what makes you think that Obama is interested in using his ‘charm’ to CHANGE any Repuglican-retarded minds? What makes you think that the American people who support Obama are interested in his ‘charm’. (which YOU are citing here, because the average supporter of Obama doesn’t talk about this, or much care either.) Matter of fact, we don’t much give a hoot about ‘charm’ or any of the rest of what you superficially focused ideologues look at. If that was all we cared about, we could turn on the TV and see Denzel Washington, watch re-runs of the West Wing. (I did enjoy that series for a while back in the day). We are actually far more captivated by his intelligence and his leadership qualifications.

Nope, nope, nope. Americans ARE paying attention. We ARE thinking, and it would appear that we ARE going to elect Barack Obama, based on his voluminous speeches, and voluminous writings and publications that carefully explain and illuminate not ONLY his ideology, but his policies, positions, and how he intends to go about implementation.

And, he is not ‘unknown’ to many of us. Actually, a larger percentage of the current voting population knows far more about HIM, than they ever knew about GWB, or even Hillary Clinton.  Just about everything he’s ever said or done is available and on the record, to anybody who wants to know. (and no…it’s not charm). Even a blind/deaf/mute person could get the information that counts most, as long as they can either read brail or sign language.

Clearly, there is NO indication anywhere, that Hillary Clinton somehow already has ‘relationships’ established with the world leaders that we most need to be communicating with right now, and into the future. She might be on tight terms with the Israelis, but the Israelis are NOT the only nation state on the globe.

As we know, she has already claimed long ago, that she wouldn’t talk to any supposed ‘dictators’ (Iran) and chided Obama as being naïve when he said that he WOULD agree to and promote dialoged with them. In other words, unlike the infantile mentality of many, there’s little to be gained from snubbing or otherwise sticking one’s tongue out at those we don’t like, or tend to otherwise disagree with.

So yeah. It looks like Obama is who we’re gonna choose, and it ain’t about being gullible. How arrogant is it for you to suggest that?

Humm...I’d say...VERY!

Rosemary:

“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!”

Brava!  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.

This is a great piece!

I couldn’t agree more!

But, I don’t know if it will permeate all the cult-like followers that Barack tends to attract.

His super-star status troubles me because I wonder
why it’s happening?  Is it because these people truly believe he will be able to bring this promised change to Washington and unite a very much so divided nation?, or, is it because they are so entranced by him, yearning for a movement of sorts that will take them to their delusional promised land? (remember Jim Jones and the Jonestown massacre?)

I tend to believe the latter which really scares me because unless people don’t WAKE-UP, or, are able to shake their muddled minds of the Obama phenomonon, then these fickle people will help catapult him to the nomination and possibly to the white house and then we’ll all be in trouble!

In-experience in the white house will surely help to promote terrorist glee with the many evil plans they hope to heap on us.

Yes, WAKE-UP people!

If he wins the presidency, be afraid, be very afraid!

Obama cannot run this country in it’s state right now.  He truly does NOT have the experience to keep us safe in these troubled times.

This is not a movement, or a following, but electing the best, most qualified person to run our country with the expertise and knowledge needed to keep our country proud and strong and with a message to our enemies, Don’t mess with the U.S.!

I’m sorry, but Obama don’t fit the bill on this.
Far from it!

Senator Clinton has more experience at the federal level than Senator Obama, plain and simple, and I mean elective office experience.  Senator Obama will make a very poor showing against Senator McCain on matters of foreign policy and national security, if he is, as is increasingly likely, the Democratic Party nominee.  That is not the only area that he will have problems with, either.  He already has problems in debates with Senator Clinton, both because he is lean on specifics and because she is a better debater.

BlueBoy1938,

Not sure if the number in your name is reflective of your birth year, but that might explain why you’ve made the above comments.

If you’re saying that Clinton has more years in the US Senate than Obama’s combined years in the State and US Senate, you’re probably right, though not by much. So what? State Senate, US Senate… the procedures are the same, and they’re both politically acquired (elected) positions.  Dennis Kucinich has more than both of them. GWB had ZERO.

I also don’t seen anything that would suggest that Hillary is a ‘better debater’ than Obama. If he has ‘problems’ with her, it’s because he’s maintaining the high road in integrity, not because he’s lean on specifics. In canned debates, the candidates answer the questions that are put to them. Few of these debates have allowed for any of the candidates to really engage in substantive matters. So, if the electorate actually wants to find these things out, it means listening to and/or reading their speeches, AS WELL AS an examination of their position papers, policies, and Congressional records.

And, UNLIKE THE DAYS OF OLD, those ‘specifics’ are now far more readily available to the population via the internet. You can find a whole bunch of Obama’s positions and policies on his website, but something makes me think you haven’t looked. Same with his speeches. And, if you’re going to use Congressional experience as a measure, it might be to your advantage to check the specifics in the bills that either of these candidates have initiated or otherwise sponsored or how they’ve voted. Something tells me you haven’t done that either.

So, we’re back to what I said before. “Experience” is relative. And, it’s relative to issues of TODAY, not 40 years ago. The question of who is a better ‘debater’ is pretty much insignificant in these staged ‘debates’. STILL, that determination is in the eyes of the beholder. Apparently, those Americans who have so far voted in the primary elections or caucuses don’t agree with you. And like I said, in these MODERN days, the details that you claim are ‘lean’ are actually there, if one knows where to look for them, and if one is so inclined to do it.

I don’t personally find CNN, FOX, or NBC to be all that helpful in putting these details out there. Even the old print media isn’t what it used to be, as we can see from this article here. Still, some of the oldies are available on line, or at the library, for anyone looking for ‘details’.

All of that said (and suggested) it’s starting to get really old, to have really old people complaining about ‘vagueness’ or lack of details from Obama or any of the democratic candidates, here in the 21st Century. There is far, far, far, more available now for voters to make decisions, than there ever was before. But I admit, this information doesn’t just knock at ones door.

Here’s a helpful site. http://www.truthout.org.
The nation magazine is also on line now at http://www.thenation.com/
Then of course there’s always CSPAN, if you want to really see them in ‘Congressional action.’ So if you wanna cite that as ‘experience’ it might be good to throw in a reference to a particular session that you may have observed, with either of these candidates putting their arguments out there.  In my OWN observations, Obama is by far the more efficient in that arena, most likely because he has MORE EXPERIENCE.

It’s got a whole bunch of ‘details’ that don’t come up in debates.

• Anyone who questions Ms. Cocco’s premise that a woman’s experience is discounted, or for that matter that people will not vote against an African American because of his race, are incredibly naive.

Maybe not so naïve blueboy. I think it’s an absolute GIVEN in America today, as it has been for the past 200 plus years, that SOME people will of COURSE vote against an African-American, just as they will vote ‘against’ a woman.

In my own responses on this site, I have consistently acknowledged that. One would have to be in a coma if one failed to recognize the foundational racism and sexism that continues to exist in this country. One could also be said to be ‘stuck’ on stupid, if they continue to insist that those are the only, or even the PRIMARY concerns of progressive citizens, in considering these two candidates.

In other words, for the billionth time, YES; some racist and sexist ignorant people will vote “against” both of these candidates. I am choosing to believe however, based on my own observations, that the population of the United actually IS finally starting to move forward in their mentalities, and to look at more important things than race, gender, and Hollywood productions in their choices in leadership.

I also believe that it would further the effort if journalists (like Marie here) would quit focusing on that.

I personally do NOT ‘discount’ Mrs. Clinton’s experience, but I DO consider it in the proper perspective. I KNOW her ‘experience’ and I also know that there is no general consensus among the electorate, on what is ‘experience’, for the job in the year 2008, with the current and future considerations at hand.

Bottom line, like everything else, ‘experience’ is very relative.

Meantime, I certainly agree with your summation of Mrs. Clinton’s present difficulties. You suggest that is unfortunate for her. Indeed, it IS ‘unfortunate’ for her, but on the other hand, it’s quite fortunate for the rest of us. From an idealistic viewpoint of what ‘democracy’ is supposed to be, I’d say this is working out quite well. So yeah, it’s ‘unfortunate, for HER, but I’m perfectly OK with it, and apparently, (based on the results of these primaries and caucuses) I’m not alone.

You’re right on this as well: Folks need to deal with the reality of an Obama presidency, so we can free ourselves from a collective ignorance, and get some work done. Anyone who thinks we can just stay stuck on stupid, and stick with the status-quo that Hillary and John McCain represent is more than naïve! They are permanent residents of the rabbit hole. I’m for digging OUT of the ditch, not digging deeper into it.

Well, I hope you spell her name correctly when you write it in. You sure did demolish the author’s name.

It’s Marie Cocco, not crocco.

I don’t particular like Ms. Cocco’s bias as a journalist, but even I have to defend the spelling of her name.

Geeze...these are the Hillary voter’s of course.

This is how we got the dumbest president in history. People like this voted for him.

Dear Human Being, I love your name, maybe because I’m a ‘humanist’.

Anyway, here’s the part of your message that I think says it all, and it is where Obama’s strength is the greatest…

“...while Obama seeks to empower the people for our greater good."…

There it is. You said it better than I could.

Thanks

Truth is spelled with a small ‘t’, not a capital ‘T.’

No one has an exclusive market on the truth. For millenea religions have been trying to claim they only know the Truth. I reject that too.

The Obama movement, at least as explained by his supporters here, is beginning to sound more like the evangelical religious movement which thinks it can dictate to all what to believe, what is right or wrong, and who to vote for. I reject that out right too!

Scary!!!!

If you think jackpine and aegrus and Cyrena are truthsayers then your post is CRAP !!!!

I’m with you if OBAMA is the nomination, I will either stay home or vote for McCain.