Stand down wooley, Lieberman is in response to another thread that must be an inside thing, I don't get, and forgot he was jewish thanks for frelling reminding me.

Obama is a candidate, he deserves scrutiny, that ain't racism that's frelling common frelling frelling frelling sense you cretin.

You've never seen Black Racism?

Allow me:http://www.youtube.com/watc­h?v=Prhnc2fxAzg&feature=relate­d

Farrakhan calling Judaism "A Gutter Religion"

Reverend Jeremiah Wright calling Farrakhan "A Great Man"

Wright damning "white" America

Obama giving $27,000.00 to Reverend Wright's Church.

duc Iran is not like the US a far cry from it. But folks is folks I agree with that.

I always thought that Saudi has something to do with it, if not directly then knowingly, this is because of the amount of Saudi's that were the terrorists and Osama bin Laden's connections with the guys who run the place over there.
Iraq should have been left alone. It was a bit nuts.

Iran is a great example of a small minority of fanatics that have taken over the government. Most Iranians are moderates to agnostic, it is the fanatical fringe that has made Iran so bizarre. This is first generation Ayatollah though by second it will become more extreme and so on.

I believe more people are passive in the US concerning muslims. I am concerned about radical Islam which I believe everyone should be.

Any concession to democracy is a road to takeover, who can forget that dude who negotiated away the Sudan reminds me of Jimmy, there is no negotiation with fanatics.

But as far as Iran is concerned, right now they are still in flux, the Ayatollah is barely holding them together and it's a bit like the whole USSR thing, American intervention would quickly destabilize that region and create issues with the Saudi's. I've always been more concerned with Saudi Arabia anyhow. Their monetary assets have increased phenomenally yet it has disproportionately devastated the middle to lower classes benefited the same amount of people as before the wealth. The Saudi's are using up their fossil water and when that happens there will be mass water demands. It's a mess. If we leave Iraq, let's just come on home and pull up the covers.

Africa is the next deal, I don't want someone in office that is overly sympathetic. The USA is developing a middle class other than in the USA, this requires resources. Resources are not unlimited, they are finite. I hope someone is working on a plan to exist in the abscence of these resources.

If we were to distribute our resources so that everyone in the world could have equal access to potable water, we would still be 1% shy of being able to supply enough water. As a world we can no longer continue over populating. This should be our primary focus imo.

do you have a link to that Obama plan, I have not seen one that seemed workable.

Health care is rough, I've been debating this with a few nurse friends and they don't see national health care working period. One is for state health care, I see that flying in the South but not in the North where state employees are paid as if they are belladonnas for the mafia. Michigan workers can't afford those prices.

Ok black racism got it, I call it black supremecy, I like it as much as the KKK. Not much at all.

Just the link on Health care, and anything else insightful you might have. and a clue to Lieberman....is in on the outs?

It would seem that more objective reviews of the two candidates' policy positions point out a great deal of similarity, though it appears on the average, that perhaps Clinton's are somewhat better formulated. [Some analysts argue much better formulated.] Hell, even in the early debates (when Clinton was supposedly getting creamed), somebody from that rather nakedly biased little XX-factor blog noted that, looking only at transcripts, Clinton looked like the winner.

Obama's a charismatic guy - no doubt about it. And he's an immensely popular politician. If you like him better - fine. I'm actually in agreement with Stanley Fish; sometimes identity politics is rational.

But don't manufacture substantive reasons to prefer him over Clinton, because what little there is to be had seems to favor her. Comparing Clinton to McCain is ludicrous. In essence, you're also drawing a comparison between Obama and McCain (regardless of your intent).

I'm pretty sure about that one. And no, I would not find Mr. Clinton an acceptable Secretary of State. Mr. Clinton is a relic of a century long behind us and a man whom I do not trust. A blowjob too far, as it were.

And within that very framework, I have refrained from paying much attention to Mr. Krugman in manner similar to the way I have refrained from visiting other pornographic web-sources, but for the sake of conversation, I diligently perused the link you provided up unto the word 'commission', which in my mind is synonomous with masturbation, albeit lacking in imaginative stimulation. Mr. Krugman is merely working on his resume for a job that no longer in exists - and for that I thank God.

I like Hillary, I really do. I don't much care for that person to whom she remains legally betrothed. It is indeed unfortunate that she still counts his balls as her assets and cannot withstand - on her own - the testes of time. Other women have. Queen Lizzy I, Margaret Thatcher. Catherine the Great (sans equinal intimacy), Cleopatra even.

The agreement between conservative and liberal factions that you have missed is that we will attempt only that which we can afford and we should not promise more than we can deliver.

Duc, that's about the most vacuous response I've ever seen you make.

I was on the plane last week, and sat next to a fellow from Germany who had applied for a distributorship with a dental products company in Utah. We ended up having a rather animated discussion about politics that generated a fair amount of interest in adjacent rows. When I mentioned this possibility, he got positively effusive.

It turns out, Bill has a lot of currency out there in the larger world. They don't care about the blowjob, you see. I guess that you do because.., er, well, why was that again?

The Krugman op-ed goes through an analysis of the Obama vs. Hillary mortgage loan crisis. Pornography? Is that what you call the written products of people with whose analysis you disagree?

"The agreement between conservative and liberal factions that you have missed is that we will attempt only that which we can afford and we should not promise more than we can deliver."

What, like big tax-cuts and increased spending on social programs like healthcare reform? Wait - wasn't that Obama's plan?

The fact is, Duc, that your statements belie your assertion that you like her. And the reasons you provide, well - the basis for them is somewhat lacking.

I don't care who you vote for. But you stated that you saw very little difference between McCain and Hillary, and I challenged you on that. So far, you've provided nothing substantive in the way of support for such a ridiculous assertion.

I find this typical of the Obama supporters who are most vocal in their criticisms of Hillary Clinton. It leads me to conclude that there is another factor at play which is contributing to their bias (and which, I strongly suspect, is also behind the abhorrent conservative reaction to her).

But whether or not I'm right about that, you've pretty thoroughly failed to support your statement.

Based on the analogy of not liking a spouse for her choice of philandering husband then:

Jackie Kennedy is a total and complete moron, her husband had sex in the White House, while she was in her bedroom, he was in his, and he used his security as pimps. She had to have been a pathetic fool to stay with him.

Coretta Scott King is a complete loser, MLK had to have shacked up with half the groupies, what is her problem? What kind of sorry self-esteem issues did she have.

Going back to the Kennedy theme, we have a dead girl in a river via Ted, what was with Joan, and we have a rape by one of the cousins? How do any of those Kennedy's get jobs? Why did Arnie marry Maria Shriver? Why does anyone vote democrat?

My point being if we were to restrict ourselves in the US with who was faithful to whom, we would all have to vote Republican, they have the best track record so far, when you add Presidents, VP's etc.

Farrakhan said as much fieldingbandolier in the youtube link that LaurieAnnM...(I think it was her link) gave. He said that the reason he didn't think that Obama can deliver is because he is promising what he CAN'T deliver.

Which is essentially my point, he doesn't have the network that Clinton has. I do believe he has made a lot of unrealistic promises to people to get their support. Would LOVE to know what he promised Judason, but when he begins giving away America to various factions inside America (states) there is going to be hell to pay. Call me a cynic but usually this has to do with Michigan's water, and these bozos can shove it where the sun don't shine, Michigan will secede first.

I think that Obama is overlaying Hillary's plans on his. I've typed this at least 100 times on this blog, but I'll go with the person who has the blueprint, she's been through it before, she knows how the system works.

And if a blow job is all they can get Hill on when that weirdo Mellon has private detectives dissecting their lives day in and day out. .....

Besides the fact that someone's spouse getting blow jobs from ditzy broads is a far less worrisome thing to me than the actual candidate having some VERY extreme left ties, both by blood, by FRIENDSHIP, by selected work affiliation, and by sought after contact. He has publicly stated he will pursue relationships with Cuba and another country that has Latino America up in arms.

I suppose we can dredge up Hillary's baking cookies escapade, and her husband's pardoning of 2 weather men, as well as her embellishment of the Bosnia escapade, and throw in there her husband's blow job, and what do we have? A woman who doesn't bake (gasp) who's husband did a few things, and a woman who showed herself brave as well as a bit imaginative. HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!

This is it for a woman whose life has been raked over the coals, been under a billionaires personal vendetta to "get something on the Clinton's" , 24 hour a day surveillance. Which by the way that Mellon's foundation is tax deducted, so in essence the US taxpayer is paying for that breach of privacy.

What do we have on Obama so far?

We know that he plagiarizes, we know that he embellishes (his book is fraught with inaccuracies),

We know he is a bad loser (he blamed a 10 year old for one frame that the kid bowled for him)(His finger to Clinton)(His brush the dirt off the shoulder gesture, while mentioning Clinton which has been made into a rap song)

We know he is unpatriotic, which in my mind lends itself to corruption.

We know that he has a racist wife, a racist minister, a racist grandma, a racist step-grandma and a racist cousin, an anti-Israeli affiliation list that reads like Chronicles I.

I say it's a pretty good guess he is a racist and I am talking of the type that will do what he can to hurt by definition of the word NOT BLACK folks to the best of his authority while in the White house. NO THANKS.

It is also a good bet that he will bring us into a palestinian war, which will spread out to Africa.

Obama was raised partially in Asia, this brings a worldview that I call into question. The rest of his upbringing was on an island that is no where near the mainland, and yeah, I don't think this really qualifies him for knowing other than reading about it, mainland USA.

I could go on and on and on.

The bottom line is I don't trust him.

the blowjob that bothers me, it was his inability to move beyond it. He allowed this transgression to consume his administration. He could not find compromise in a compromising situation. He is dangerously benign. After eight years of Bush, the rest of the world that would call itself our friends does indeed fondly recall his benign predecessor.

Hillary is less so, but she is argumentative to a fault. That's not a bad quality for a Senator.

I'll return to my original point, which is that in terms of results, I expect no better from Clinton than McCain.

I agree that Clinton dealt poorly with the media on his blow job. I also am against him being Secy of State, I think we need to keep Rice on the loop with that. We need to know what has been in the bathwater so to speak.

I also think the Clintons should take some field notes from McCain on dealing with press stupidity, you let the press run with the ball, and soon it's gone from basketball to football to golf.

I do expect more from Clinton than McCain, she does have a valid plan for getting the economy on track, and if democrats agree on anything it should be the fact that the Clinton administration was able to get us out of the morass that we were in financially with the other Bush. It will take 20 years to get us out of the mess this Bush has gotten us into financially, which is why I skirt the idea of Isolationism.

Obama's abysmal showing in the debates is indicative to me of his non-readiness. I found his lack of info of supply-side economics embarrassing. It makes the Democrats look like donkeys. Hillary redeemed the party there.

Obama should grow up. He has said he won't debate Hill anymore because the debates are silly. Wow. This debate was actually more substantive than the other debates, the only difference was that Obama was asked tough questions and did not always follow Hillary. I'm not mascotting this guy, he's gotta grow up, and start doing his homework. Charm don't cut it with folks who are worried about their jobs.

Here are what the pundits have to say about Obama's bad showing during and AFTER the debates

<link>

FB: I don't get that at all. Can you provide some examples, like, from policy positions?

ducadmo: I don't really pay any attention to that policy stuff. Here's the deal - she's like McCain. Neither has a plan for the economy, Hillary's health care plan won't make it through congress [Sorry - this is like McCain how?], Clinton wants to "talk tough" on Iran like McCain does, while Obama has a much better plan for providing legitimacy to despots shoring up relations by conducting direct talks between heads of state. Any other questions?

FB: Well yes, actually. Here's one analyst who seems to feel Hillary's proposals are superior to Obama's. There's reason to think that compromising too much on healthcare, though it might get legislation passed, is worse than doing nothing, Bill would make a great Secretary of State, history shows he's unlikely to play escalating brinksmanship games with Iran, and last - what's with all the Hillary hating, anyway? You haters sound a lot like Newt Gingrich in the old days.

FB: Oh, and some more information. Here are some links showing the many similarities in position between Obama and Hillary, and here are some that indicate Hillary's positions are somewhat more progressive. Even people who've shown clear bias against Hillary concede she knows more about what she's talking about that Obama. Liking Obama is fine, but making up fictitious reasons for liking him better than Clinton is, well, dishonest. Oh, and saying she's a lot like McCain is ludicrous.

ducadmo: Oh, Hillary's not that bad - I actually like her. I don't trust her husband because he got an illicit blowjob, and then didn't want to tell the world about it. I don't review evidence I disagree with, so, tough nut on the links. The problem with Hillary (where Democrats and Republican's agree) is that she promises more than she can deliver.

[Doesn't respond to the other supportive information, presumably consistent with the assertion that doesn't like to read things that contradict his opinions]

FB: Wow, you sure said a lot of nothin'. What do you care about blowjobs other people got, anyway? Nobody in the broader world seems to. Obama also promises more than he can deliver [just like every other politician who has ever run for office, I might add]. You say you like her, but then you act like you don't, and you don't really explain why. I think you're being intellectually dishonest - just like the other Hillary hatin' Obama love children.

ducadmo: Oh, I don't mind the blowjob, it's just that her husband was unable to appease all those people who were making a concerted, no-holds-barred effort to undermine his presidency at any cost. On top of that, he is dangerous in his non-dangerousness. Hillary isn't non-dangerous, because she argues too much, which is fine for a senator. Like I said, I don't expect anything different from her than McCain.

FB: [new response] Why don't you go back and review this thread again, and see if you can identify any supporting evidence (at all) for your assertion that Hillary Clinton is like McCain. While you're at it, you might want to take a look at the contrary evidence I provided (even though it makes you uncomfortable).

I'm glad you like Obama - he's a very likable guy. But there's a difference between liking a candidate and manufacturing post-hoc rationalizations for why he's better than a competing candidate, and that difference is important; by portraying Hillary Clinton in such a manner, you exacerbate the rift developing within the Democratic party, because the people who support her can so clearly see the fictitious confabulation, and how little it resembles reality. All I'm asking you to do is to be rational about it.

I'd say the same to Hillary supporters who are painting Obama as some kind of creep. Obama looks to be a fine candidate, his inspirational qualities are a big plus, and I'd gladly vote for him [and if you won't, you're being as ridiculously irrational as Duc here - look at the evidence. Please.]. My biggest concern about Obama is that I don't think he can beat McCain. This is an issue I really hope I'm wrong about, because it's looking increasingly likely that this will be the matchup.

As Demos noted awhile back, Hillary's negatives are all known - they've been out there for years. Despite these, she's actually quite close (albeit likely not close enough) to winning the nomination. Obama's negatives are only just starting to emerge (and Hillary's been quite easy on him, really). The Republican political machine is remarkably adept at manipulating image, and they haven't even really gotten to work on Obama yet. Watch and see what happens (and watch McCain, the born-again conservative, drop his bible and begin competing for the center again).

You're free to disagree - in fact, you should. But Duc, can you please (please) be rational about it? Can you come up with something more substantive than "Oh, I really like her, I just don't like her husband"? Cause if you can't, I'd say there's another bias at work that you're, for whatever reason, unwilling to acknowledge or examine.

And that really is dishonest.

I'm just going to post this youtube url....Obama uses Hillary's name as much as his own in campaign ads, he also has been politicking as President in his campaign spots, I find that a bit ummmm, I don't even know what to think, I think it is a move to get us off his bad show in the debate

Youtube link that shows Obama's bizarre campaign strategy, his staff has even been using falsified citations to prove their point, which up until now has not needed regulation but after this one should qualify for jail time imo:

<link>

Another Youtube video that has pundits talking about Obama's bad Debate and his worse after the debate showing.

"Obama seemed to be angry and bitter"

The debate oddly enough had MORE issues than any of the other debates, the only difference is that Obama was asked harder questions in this debate than the other debates.

<link>

Obama's acting like an American politician.

That's probably a good thing, because odds are, he's going to be the Democratic nominee, and he's going to have to know how to use spin and image manipulation if he has any shot at all of winning the White House.

Isn't he?