Sen. McCain’s claim to fame resounds as an echo to Norman Podhoretz’s prayer to his Jewish God in support of nuking Iran; being Joe Lieberman’s best pal in “bomb[ing]; bomb[ing]; bomb[ing] coupled to a “vendetta-like” intent to wage timeless wars to make up for his personal ordeal.

Experience must never be the sole deciding factor in decision making. Witness the experiences of GWB as CinC from the first time he made the Oval Office his. Using experience as the ultimate standard of qualifications is the lazy [wo]man’s way of judging character and abilities.

While this may read quizzically and given historical reporting Jesus Christ was quite inexperienced; whereas Napoleon had decades of experiences. One can by allusion remark on a number of other historical figures, ie Louis the 14th, Hitler, Lincoln, etc,.

Given the recent news suggesting a Clintonian escapade by Sen. McCain the issue of experience becomes rather moot.

I don’t think anyone ‘caught’ this allegation about Claire McCaskill daughter, because nobody CARES. As a matter of fact, I’ve never even heard or read that! And if anyone else on this thread read or otherwise heard it, THEY PROBABLY DIDN’T CARE EITHER!

Where do you come up with this stuff anyway? The national inquirer? Or is this the talk at the local bingo hall? Is this what passes for political discourse in Texas these days? Geeze...it wasn’t that bad when I lived there, and it was pretty bad.

All this talk “Rock Stars” makes me wonder what decade it was, when you became ‘fossilized’. I mean, I was living in that hell hole the first time the Rove machine stole the election for GW, and admittedly, my co-residents were mostly stupid. I hate admitting one was even related, (though he may have moved to Ohio by then...still stupid though).

But, NONE of them, (even the dummies) thought GW was a ‘rock star’.

Nope, it’s far less ‘exciting’ than any of that. Stupid American’s (though not enough for him to legitimately win either election) voted for the moronic shrub because he was the Repug Party choice, and because too many ‘group think’ people, (especially repugs) just follow the group think.

It’s like the quote that farmerTx gave us from a Texas repug, who said he’d “vote for Mickey Mouse if he was the repug nominee.” And, that’s what people did, for consecutive elections. They voted for Mickey Mouse and his diabolical puppet master. And, what they didn’t get (in electoral support) from the actual voting public, the Rove machine rigged up.

Now, I hate to mention this for you Hillary supporters, but the SAME ones that were lining up behind georgie boy at the time, were also bad mouthing Hillary at every turn. I don’t know WHY, since she wasn’t even running. (at least not for Prez..and not at the time). But I’ll tell you what, they were sure stoking up the Hillary hate, way back then. (no rational reasons, just like there was no rational reason to EVER vote for GWB).

So yep, there are still the stupidos out there. And the neurotics, and the hillbillies. That would include people who are still so far behind as to use the term ‘rock star’ or actually believe (and write) that a politician they probably don’t know a thing about, actually allowed her 17-year old daughter to make a ‘big decision’ for her.

Sounds like your ‘pet rock’ is making all of yours lib…

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.

At least McCain voted against the latest Bush/Cheney Reich effort to make torture such as waterboarding a legal, routine part of warfare. This won’t stop or even slow it down while the Chancellor and his Goebbels hold this country in their grip, but for this relic, it is progress. Too bad he stumbles frequently, as many his age do, with slips like ‘100 years in Iraq’ and ‘there will be many wars’. John also appears to be getting some bad zipper advice.
Bottom line 2008: McCain=sustained Iraq war for at least four more years at present levels with almost certain increases in the theatre to include American presence in border regions of Iran and Syria, expand the war in Afganistan, and the very real possibility that if Pakistan destabilizes, he may pull a George W and send troops into that slaughterhouse. I don’t think he realizes that military conscription and tax revenue necessary to put a four-front war on will send this country to the brink of oblivion. Where it is perilously close to being already.
HillBilly is the same plan, different party. In many respects, McCain, though potentially close to the senile dementia that characterized Reagan’s tenure at a similar age, has a voting record that is not that different than Clinton’s, and she/he makes no pretense of ending the Iraq conflict without a lengthy ‘drawdown’ and has threatened to negotiate Iran with nukes ‘on the table’. One can only hope that Bubba, who has raked in superdelegate bucks for nearly 15 years, has not sold out the Republicrats as their serfs vote in increasing droves for Obama. This is a brokered convention and unless Obama sweeps every state remaining, the deals struck (rhetoric to the contrary aside) may doom him. I remain unconvinced that he is a ‘peace’ candidate, but among these three he is the only apparent ‘non-war candidate’.
Thus the choice is becoming abundantly clear: a War GOP candidate on the one hand, the slim hope for a non-HillBilly, and thus possibly non-war Republicrat on the other. Can the Republicrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again? Obama can beat McCain, but HillBilly can’t, and the writing is on the wall that they will run her anyway. You would hope that after losing the 2004 election to the Chancellor, the party that gave us Gore, Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis, and Humphrey would figure it out by now.

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!

You can’t make any point by being inaccurate, omop, especially when it is so easy to be correct.  And you still got the date wrong.

As far as I can determine, by saying Senator McCain is “basically a high school graduate” whatever the year, you are implying that he is insufficiently educated.  Well, I believe that the fact that he graduated sixth from the bottom in his 1958 Annapolis class would be a better prop for your argument.

In your latest post, you say you wanted to emphasize his cavalier “100 years in Iraq” remark.  Well, why didn’t you just come right out and say that?  It’s taken three posts for us to get that from you.  I agree with you that statement of his is bizarre, and I further believe that it borders on megalomania.  I just hope that your high school remark has inspired others to look at the senator’s bio.

Aside from the Viet Nam heroics, which are to be honored, no question, his life has been a kaleidoscope of the bizarre.  His latest lobbyist peccadillo fits right into the womanizing that has been a recurrent theme, although they both deny romantic involvement.  When all that and other stuff starts coming out, I doubt any of the right wingers will hang around and vote for him, holding their nose or not.  That still does not excuse anyone from failing to vote for the Democratic nominee because it doesn’t turn out to be their first choice.  The possibility of two vacancies on the more liberal end of the Supreme Court bench scream that out.

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.

Do you like Kool-aid?

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.

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.

• 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.

John McCain graduated from the U. S. Naval Academy in 1958.  He graduated from high school in 1954.  In any case, the implication that he is merely a high school graduate is pathetically uninformed.

Touted to the Israelis by his pal Joe LIeberman as their best bet John McCain is still basically a 1955/56 high school gradute who is anxious to get over “ there” and kick some butt raelly anybody’s butt.

Talking as well as writing heads like the 30 year veterans in DC. are still condenscending about the average American’s intellect. McCain as President would have made some sense in 1990.  2008 marks over 50 years since his high-school days.

At one time an Otis elevator operator prided himself on his experiences of going up and down for 20 years. An evaluation of many a Washington DC senator as to his/her experience.

The primary factor for the voter is not whther Obama is qualified or not. The primary factor is that based on his accomplishments and what he considers are his qualifications [such as stayinng in Iraq for another 100 years] McCain is not the best of the best for America

you are right if OBAMA is the nomination it is like the 2000 & 2004 debacle. GW was the rock star then and people just blindly voted for him both times.  Even tho the second time they knew he was a screw up.
History repeating itself only on the democrat side. OBAMA is a rock star and that is all.But again people like to idolize someone and right now he is it. Its like Claire Mccaskill backing Obama because her 17 year old daughter told her she would never speak to her again. No one caught that, that she let her daughter make a big decision for her.  Doesn’t say much for our elected officials.

Charles Schumer is the “Senior Senator from New York,” Cyrena, and will be until he leaves office.  But that’s really beside the point.  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.

All that being said, the possibility of a conservative Republican in the White House for the next four years, making at least one and probably two appointments to fill the more liberal vacancies that are likely to develop among the more liberal justices of the Supreme Court is enough that it should make anyone who is contemplating “sitting out” the election in a fit of pique if “their” candidate is not the Democratic Party nominee reconsider that absurd position.

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.  That, however, is not the principal reason for Senator Clinton’s present difficulties.  The bad decisions by her campaign, and ultimately by her, since she is unavoidably responsible for it, are.  Senator Obama’s people have outflanked hers, and she is paying dearly for their lack of planning and organization.  The fact that she was repaid the $5 million loan is nice, but the fact that she had to make it laid bare just how poorly her campaign has been managed.  Since a president exercises power through others, that speaks poorly of her executive skills and well of his.

There are 161 delegates at stake in Ohio, and if the recent polls hold, Clinton will get about 83 of those and Obama about 70; in Texas, 228, about 120 to Clinton and 110 to Obama.  So it really doesn’t look very promising for her to catch up, even if she carries those big states by the margins indicated if the primaries were held today.  Unfortunately for her, they are on March 4th, with all that time likely to benefit Obama, as it has consistently in previous contests.  So, I think it is time to get over it and get used to him being the Democratic candidate.

Brava, Sue!  The revivalist-religious language being used by Obama, his campaign and his supporters gives this minister the willies.  And although Obama has largely tried to leave this type of language to his minions, I was more than shocked by his comment in his Texas speech in which he referred - only somewhat obliquely - to his presidency as our “salvation.”

Yikes.

Peace.

Brava, Sue!  The revivalist-religious language being used by Obama, his campaign and his supporters gives this minister the willies.  And although Obama has largely tried to leave this type of language to his minions, I was more than shocked by his comment in his Texas speech in which he referred - only somewhat obliquely - to the his presidency as our “salvation.”

Yikes.

Peace.

...and I quote; “Obama seeks to empower the people for our greater good” ?

Exactly what I see when it comes to Obama.

But I don’t want to be empowered for my greater good.

I’m not a sinner who needs to be empowered, or led around by the nose.

America is the greater good! Freedom needs to prevail, along with freedom of speech and the like.

We don’t need a master leading his lost sheep to the slaughter house.

I’m looking for a Real american president with realistic ideals.

This image eminating from him isn’t realistic. More creepy I’d say.

As much as people like to tout Hillary’s achievements and “experience,” it is not a prerequisite to have either in order to be president. Barack has all the good ideas and Hillary/McCain do not. Ideas are what made this country great, and Obama is the most progressive-thinking candidate we can have.

If you vote for McCain, you’ll just be adding more conservative supreme court justices to our list of problems. So go ahead and count yourself higher than your fellow Americans. You’re the one doing a disservice to our country.

Marie Cocco’s allegation that “A hidden reason the lopsided Obama/Clinton experience argument has so far been won by Obama is that she’s a woman” is self-delusional.

It’s NOT that Clinton is a woman but that this woman is a Clinton!

Men and women alike of discernment clearly perceive that Clinton is slippery, dishonest, deceptive and serially disingenuous! 

Gender is not a useful lens with which to view the modern world.  Credibility is a far, far more useful one.  Clinton’s credibility is weakened every time she opens her mouth.  The sexist dismissal of OUR “experience”, which has engendered a legitimate distrust of Clinton and her kind of politician, discredits to Cocco. 

Nonetheless, those who would abstain or vote for McCain rather than Obama, risk repetition of the 2000 debacle.  I’d vote for a Limburger cheese sandwich rather than any ‘Publican, especially Dubya-lite McCain, so if worst comes to worst, I’ll hold my nose and go with Clinton as the lesser of the two evils.

Dear Aegrus,

I’ll take your advice of “get used to his leadership” when he can prove to me that he can truly provide that leadership!

I don’t want advisers running the country.

Barack won’t have a clue on what to do when immediate decisions need to be made that are imparative to the safety of our country regarding this war.

He’ll be blinded by his campaign promises to get out of Irag in 2009 even if common sense and responsibility screams otherwise.

He says he can be tough. I’m sorry, but I don’t see it in him.

He’s about as tough as his baby-face looks will allow. (remember the Jimmy Carter presidency?)

Unless he proves otherwise, I’ll stick with Hillary or John McCain on experience issues to the end.

Sounds as though Marie is trying to play the ‘sexist’ card in her rather sophomoric “sour grapes” article resulting from Obama’s rise to the top.  She and some of these posters just don’t get it.  We are not “dismissing” Hillary because she is a woman, but because she is Hillary.  She wants to return to the White House for personal glory & power and her votes in the Senate have shown that she cares ‘not a whit’ about what is best for the American people.

I’m not a big, trusting, fan of Obama (yet) but I’ll take him over the likes of Shillary every time.  I wanted Kucinich (still do) but the American ‘sheeple’ let corporate Amerika shut him down before the electorate had a chance to THINK or vote.  I also feel that Obama can easily beat an ignorant old “wardog” like McCain.  If not, my country doesn’t deserve any return to the place of respect and hope in the eyes of the world that it’s enjoyed in gentler times in the past.  Right now it looks like a reincarnation of Nazi Germany...bigger, scarier, nastier!

I retired abroad after the Supreme Court gave the Presidency to the Texas turd and, since then, have seen no good reason to return or regret my decision to leave.  But I still CARE...and vote!  And HOPE...that Obama will make a good President...and that Congress will get off their collective ‘rears’ and IMPEACH the criminals and traitors currently in the White House.
Good luck, my fellow countrymen/countrywomen!

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

This is slightly out of place in the thread, but have you ever had an original thought?  It sure seems like all you can do is reply to posts and attack.

In an effort of full disclosure, i do not like the Clintons...either of them.  However, not liking the Clintons is not the same thing as being an Obama supporter.  You see, people who actually think about things tend to see shades of gray.  And some people, like myself, don’t trust any politician.

I do like Obama better than Clinton, but that hardly makes me a supporter (i didn’t vote for him in my primary). 

I enjoy watching politics, but i’m not stupid enough to think that a politician...any politician is going to change things or make things better.

So.  Take you personal attacks on me and find something else to do with them.  Finally, if you insist on calling yourself “liberal”, you might want to look the word up in the dictionary.

Louise, you think your quite the detective. Yes I see you got it from Maani, but then you had to go on and try to give us an education on it. You didn’t strike any nerve with me. You come up with some pretty idiotic things to say.

I agree with you 99% of the time but I will stay home if OBAMA is the nomination. I remember the 2000 & 2004 election.  I was fighting the same fight about GW and people BLINDLY voted for someone Who I felt would destroy our country.  I wasn’t wrong then and I am not wrong now.  We can’t be in any sorrier shape with mccain as we will be with OBAMA.

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!!!!

uh ... actually I borrowed it from Maani who used it in a post below ...

If you try real hard I’ll bet you can find it.

Hmmm. Seems I struck a nerve. Is that one repub undercover, uncovered?

For the record, it is just as absurd to speak of voting for McCain over Obama as it is of voting for McCain over Hillary.  The bottom line is that all the Democrats here want a Democrat in the White House, and not a Republican, especially one who would happily remain in Iraq for 100 years, among many other vile positions.

I hope that all of those comments are just angry hyperbole, and that no one here who would vote for Obama over Hillary or Hillary over Obama would vote for McCain over either of them.  I also hope that those people whose candidate does not get the nomination will not refrain from voting either.  That, too, is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Peace.

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

Most of you posts are making personal attacks ?? And again i’m not wasting my time to go point by point cause it goes over your head anyway.  I don’t have the slightest interest in your ancestry, the point I was making was 85% of the blacks are voting for OBAMA
and you are the one who keeps mentioning your ancestry otherwise how would I know.
Most of the time I don’t bother to read you as usually it is long and drawn out and boring,most of it NOT true either. 
Yes, I was WRONG about HIllarys school which was YALE
and did you get it that OBAMA never lived in Kansas nor does he have a Kansas accent.
Keep track all you want, but I would think that would be pretty boring thing to do but, be my guest.

Louise stop the OLD TIRED rhetoric, Your the smarmy one.  You had to reach back a long ways to come up with the word SMARMY.

You people nauseate me with your complete adoration
of BARACK OBAMA.  I hope we don’t have a president named BARACK HUSEIN OBAMA. UGH !!!!!

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

It’s easy to say Sue Cook is against progress if she considers voting for McCain.

Also, it is easy to conclude Barack Obama is a true leader to be able to dethrone Queen Hillary.

Regardless, Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States of America. Get used to his leadership, Sue.

Hillary is the best choice period!

I would rather have her running the country than Barack period!

Especially the condition that it will be in when Bush leaves office.

Barack has absolutely no experience with foreign matters in peace time let alone in war time.

Our issues here at home aren’t much better.

There will be a full slate to take on in January 09, and Barack won’t be able to cut the mustard.

I’m voting for Hillary if she is nominated, but will switch very fast to McCain if it’s Obama.

We need a true leader, not one with strengths with cult-like followers. Woman swooning and fainting at the mere site of him?  Give me a break.

Wake up people, come out of your trance-like states and vote for a true leader!

This is not a re-vival, but choosing who our next president will be.

Thanks for the education on Senatorial titles bert.
That is of course really critical information. I was allowing Hillary to be something more that a Junior Senator, when in fact, she’s a Junior Senator, just as Obama is a Junior Senator. Something else they have in common.

Sorry you don’t like my writing. I’m not planning to change it though. Looks like you haven’t taken advantage of my quit tip to avoid that annoyance. Just scroll right through it.

Smarmy:
:Hypocritically, complacently, or effusively earnest; unctuous.

:revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction — New Yorker>

:of low sleazy taste or quality <smarmy eroticism>

Which of these Smarmy definitions did you have in mind? And were you referring to Obama or ... uh, yourselves?

Seems to me the attack on word choice, as if that somehow lessons the value of the person using the words is truly smarmy.

Interesting. If we follow the logic put forth here by alleged Hillary supporters, we are to believe somehow it is wrong to use words which over the years have proved to be of value, or so right.

If that is the case, then I guess we better throw out all the quote books, all the great speeches, all the great ideas, anything and everything that has come forth from the mouth of man. Which would leave us all silent I suspect, because few people are able to come with an original idea. In fact, we are all guilty of plagiarism by repeating “We The People”

Failing to be able to discredit Obama because of experience or honesty or his general message. The fine art of pettiness, attacking the words has become the practice of the day. Don’t you people realize when you focus on the petty you actually hurt Hillary? Because you make her look like she is focusing on the petty!

I sometimes wonder if you aren’t all actually repubs under cover ...

lib in TX. You’re correct on my genealogy/ancestry.It IS both, though I also have a Caucasian parent, so it really starts becoming multi-strained, eh?

What’s curious is that you pointed it out, as if that has anything to do with anything. Actually lib, it really isn’t all that curious TO ME, since I long ago tagged you as the racist you obviously are, when you were doing the rah-rah thing for Ron Paul.

Meantime, I can hardly be said to ‘know everything’. I don’t, and never claimed to. I just know a whole lot more than you! (Did you get the message yet, that it is OBAMA who is the Harvard Law graduate and that Hillary is Yale?)

I also don’t see Hillary’s travels as some equal measure of ‘experience’ for the job of president. I think it’s helpful, but not particularly important in the sense that Americans obviously didn’t care about any of this ‘experience’ when the elected gwb for 2 terms.

My post on this thread was NOT directed at you, and so yours (above) is a PERSONAL attack, and not part of any discourse or debate on the article itself. There are a lot of these from you, (personal attacks) and I generally ignore them. I am keeping track however.

For now, maybe you should just slither back under your rock, unless you’d like to go make this addition in your records to my family tree. It is still of minor concern to me that you feel the need to ‘track’ my ancestry, when you don’t know me, and I’m not planning on running for any office.

Still, it is very revealing that you would bring this up. Don’t you read any other posts. It’s NOT ABOUT ME.

Then again, did you even read the article, or do you just tune in here to make personal attack comments?I don’t think you know how to read.

@Maani

It’s smarmy to begin nit-picking about what words and phrases a candidate uses, and where these terms originated. Such scrutiny has not been magnified upon the Clinton or McCain camps. None of these words or ideas are subject to plagiarism.

I’d go so far as to say Obama’s good choice and ability to use these ideas and words to fit with his campaign’s message so well show his great judgment and competence as an intellectual. Heaven forbid we elect a reader, or someone with culture! Especially since both Hillary and McCain fail hard at creating a unified and organized message within their campaigns.

If you are of a mind that you truly believe you cant influence what goes on around you. That you need a leader who tells you what to do and how to do it. What to think and when to think it. And most important infers you really have no value, except to the degree you think, you helped pick that leader ... then of course, “...we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for,” will make absolutely no sense to you.

You are a “let george do it” person.

In fact, I suggest you are neither liberal or looking for strong leadership. What you are looking for is a “leader” who will do everything for you, and expect, no encourage you do nothing for yourself ... except bitch ... and accept without action, everything and anything dumped on you.

If on the other hand this sentence resonates with you ... as it did with the cheering Obama supporters ... you probably feel like leadership that takes you out of the equation, except as just another “you” to use, is not true leadership. Then you know exactly what this means.

Then you are part of the populace that’s tired of being taken out of the equation. Tired of having their letters ignored, then getting rationalization defining and justifying the ignoring because of some mystical, unexplained, secret and often dishonest reason. Tired of bad legislation followed by lies to try and make it look good.

Tired of an immoral but legal [because our congress approved it] war, even though it was a HUGE mistake, based on lies and managed with the greatest incompetence in living memory. And in spite of the fact that it is a monumental failure and immoral and wrong, and based on a lie, a congress that has continued to support it! Tired of the majority being ignored. A majority who’ve been calling for it’s end almost from the first discovery that every reason the congress chose to believe has been PROVED a lie! 

Tired of falling purchasing power because of that bad legislation and that dishonest war and those unfair tax breaks to those friends of the political elite who need them least.

Most people aren’t that stupid. Most people want to feel their voice and their support is welcome. Most people want to believe they can make a difference. Most people want to be part of the process. And most people are willing to do whatever that requires if the door is opened. And that’s why most people understand exactly “...we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for!”

Lib:

One interesting fact here is that Hillary STILL gets higher marks for her “ability to handle a crisis.” In poll after poll, while Hillary and Obama rank equal in many ways, and Obama ranks higher in some, one of the things in which Hillary has consistently ranked higher - by 2 to 1 - is in people’s belief that she would handle a 9/11-type crisis better than Obama would.

And while it is unlikley (?) that we will have such a crisis while one of them is in the White House, it remains a strong indication that people consider Hilary’s “experience” (and possibly age and wisdom) greater than Obama’s in this regard.

Peace.

Lib:

Actually, the phrase “we are the ones we have been waiting for” has been attributed to the Hopi Indians.  HOWEVER, Obama got it from Rev. Jim Wallis’ book “God’s Politics” (which he read prior to the Sojourners forum in which he, Hillary and Edwards appeared AND IN WHICH HE REMARKED ON THAT EXACT PHRASE).

Given that Obama is under fire for having lifted pieces of his speeches from a colleague and friend, without attribution (oddly, he also stole bits and pieces from speeches made by Martin Sheen on The West Wing), the fact that he took this phrase without attribution AND HAS VIRTUALLY MADE IT HIS OWN - to the point that his supporters truly believe it is original, and regurgitate it that way - I find just a bit smarmy.

Peace.

lib in texas + bert < Substance and Issues

lib, if only cyrena was correct only part of the time that would be great.

Based on her last post she apparently does not know how the title of junior and senior Senator are used in the U.S. Senate. It is not based on how many years or terms you serve. In actually both Clinton and Obama are junior Senators. It is simply Senate tradition to refer to the Senator with greater longevity in the chamber as the “senior” Senator (IL-Durbin, NY-Schummer) and the more recently elected Senator as the “junior” Senator(IL-Obama, NY- Clinton.)

I won’t go into cyrena’s terrible grammar and sentences that make no sense at all ("… if she could just does a quick course Senatorial duties.")

And yes, cyrena, the general electorate will be different than voters in primaries. Part of the general electorate will be those who voted in the primary; but part will be Rs, and Is, and those who don’t vote in primaries at all. That is why candidates position themselves one way for a primary and often position themselves differently (most often moving to the center) in a general. But I assume you really know this. You just think everyone will agree with you and see your logic and thus vote your way. If only winning a general was that easy.

All Ms Cocco is saying is that should he be the Democratic nominee, if Obama positions himself as he has in the primary it most likely will not work against McCain. And as ususal, she is spot on. This doesn’t mean Obama could not win. It would mean he would have to run a different kind of campaign than the one he is running now to do so.

Thank you, lib. I saw that qyote and felt like responding too.

In fact, “...we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for,” is a quote from one of Obama’s speeches. I watched Obama on C-Span the other night and when I heard that I did a double take. I thought what did he just say? But the line got a huge cheer and loud round of applause.

You are right. It makes no sense at all.

Why don’t you run for president ?  You are so smart know almost everything, have the same experience as Hillary and you can sling the shit like OBAMA. On top of that you are black or is it indian accestory I heard you say both.
What is HIllarys position on education? Corporate
lobbiest ? SAME as OBAMAS ! She is not for NAFTA even tho it was created on Bill’s watch. Torture, shes against it. More wars ?  Thats just a plain lie on your part.

Here in Texas the GOP can vote in the Democratic primaries.  The RNC are encouraging them to vote for
Obama.  They know they can beat Obama in the General election.  So I guess you all want another jack ass in the White House.  One who graduated at the bottom of his class at Annapolis.  George Bush graduated at he bottom of his class too, from Yale.  You want change from one idiot to another.  Good luck! How many blind followers voted for Bush TWICE?  And you OBAMA fans are blind followers.

aegus, we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for?  See, you are all about slogans and that if analyzed makes no sense.  EMPTY WORDS.

It didn’t do any good when it came time to vote against a stupid war and it won’t help us get out of Iraq, either.  Their mindset is so 1900’s.

Marie has the same issue as most of these political opinionists who have jobs under the title of journalist. She does her half-bit about the campaigns of both clients using talking points issued from either camp. A discussion of issues is clearly lacking.

When we come down to the fundamentals, a few things are certain. Hillary’s health care platform isn’t bad, but it is the wrong time to implement a mandatory bill on the American people. The campaign has been something of a chimera, taking other forms when necessary. The accomplishments of Hillary as a senator are skeptic.

Obama’s health care plan isn’t perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. I know people want immediate results and a candidate to save them from the tyranny of Bush Neo-cons, but a candidate cannot be a savior. Obama’s main good point is how he gets Americans to believe in their power again. I believe this will get the ball rolling in future elections to make better decisions.

Thinking about campaigns, why doesn’t anyone draw the clear distinction on how Hillary Clinton continues to boast how she can fix problems, while Barack Obama focuses on us helping ourselves? She’s ready on day one to lead, but we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for.

And here i thought that Sen Obama was winning the nomination campaign because he was energizing people, bringing in loads of newer voters into the process, and running a good campaign. 

Apparently, the fumbling of the Clinton campaign is not the Clinton campaign’s fault at all.  Ok, whatever.  This is the campaign that has systematically alienated everyone who doesn’t live in a very blue state or uses a caucus systems (except New Mexico, that was an ok caucus). Yesterday, a MI superdelegate and Clinton campaigner said that “super delegates are not second class citizens”.  He went on to add that any delegate from a ‘red’ state, is, in fact a second class citizen.  Or how about the fact that the Clinton campaign, only yesterday, realized that the delegate apportioning process in Texas favors Obama in a big way.  They realized this YESTERDAY...some firewall.  Obama’s campaign, on the other hand, has been out informing voters how it works.

If how a candidate’s administration operates is anything like how their campaign operates...i’ll pass on President Clinton.

Gee whiz Marie couldn’t even get beyond the first sentence in her obvious bias. And I was hoping s