or his statement implied that the war is not a static thing.

also actual military planning is different than saying whether a war is justifiable or not before the fact.

5/16/2008 6:26:55 PM

sarijoul,

If war is not static, why is Obama setting hard deadlines for withdrawal and even promicing how long that withdrawal will take? Obama has not given voice to the "nuance" of his position in any single speech. Indeed, as TNR points out, he and his staff continually want to simplify the public perception of his position to be "he's the guy that will get us out of Iraq." Is he purposely mis-leading people when he does this? If not, why doesn't he simply say that war is not static and that he can't set a date on when we will be out of Iraq? He has had plenty of chances to do so.

Stein,

Quote :

"Opinions and stances have a way of changing as people become better informed"

I'm not sure how else to read that. To become better infromed, one would have to be less informed to start with. If Obama's position has changed in 2006 because he was become more informed, that implies he was less informed in the period leading up to 2006. No way else to read that statement. Sorry.

[Edited on May 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ``]

5/16/2008 6:46:48 PM

Obama could have shown some nuance during the Philly debates when he was asked if his pledge to bring the troops home in 16 months was "rock-hard". He did not. He and his campaign manager have made it clear. They want you to believe that we will be out in 16 months. Way to keep your mind open.

Quote :

"MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home. SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief. And what I have to look at is not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, we are overstretched in a way -- we do not have a strategic reserve at this point. If there was another crisis that was taking place, we would not have a brigade that we could send to deal with that crisis that isn't already scheduled to be deployed in Iraq. That is not sustainable. That's not smart national security policy, and it's going to change when I'm president. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

Get a load of that Hope and Change! He HOPES he wont have to CHANGE his position again!

[Edited on May 16, 2008 at 6:57 PM. Reason : Who needs Remote Control?]

5/16/2008 6:54:54 PM

i'm okay with not having permanent bases in Iraq.

Not in the next 4 years, but that depends on what Iraq looks like by then.

5/16/2008 7:11:22 PM

Went right over your head didn't it Mr Frog?

5/16/2008 7:37:24 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure how else to read that. To become better infromed, one would have to be less informed to start with. If Obama's position has changed in 2006 because he was become more informed, that implies he was less informed in the period leading up to 2006. No way else to read that statement. Sorry."

Less informed doesn't mean willfully uninformed, as you put it earlier. It just means less informed.

5/17/2008 3:13:59 AM

Unless someone was keeping this knowledge from him, being uninformed was a willful act.

And yet he still felt it appropriate to comment frequently on Iraq. So I guess he was uninformed and just didn't give a shit.

Maybe we can HOPE he will be a better President than he was a Senator. Isn't that his slogan or something?

[Edited on May 17, 2008 at 3:31 AM. Reason : ``]

5/17/2008 3:26:13 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C5O4ZGbWKaM

5/17/2008 4:05:10 AM

5/18/2008 4:38:45 PM

^ Fail.

5/19/2008 5:27:22 AM

Obama's 6 Positions on Iraq
(this is just so I can have all my links in one post)

1) We should Stay In Iraq.
2004: Obama says US forces should remain in Iraq and that “there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

2) We Should Leave Iraq Immediatley.
2008: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

3) Congress should not set time-tables for withdrawal.
2006: "But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy".
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

4) Congress should set time-tables for withdrawal.
2007: "That is why today, I'm introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070130-floor_statement_8/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?ref=politics


5) Withdrawal from Iraq should be flexible, without a "hard" deadline.
2006: "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

2007: Under the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, "withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

6) Withdrawal from Iraq should be inflexiable and focus on a "hard" withdrawal date.
2008:

Quote :

""MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home. SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie...Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?pagewanted=print

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 8:59 AM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 8:58:13 AM

^ Ha-ha! Excellent! I think voters are finally going to discover that--despite all the heady slogans--Obama is just another politician.

Flip-flop? YES WE CAN!

5/19/2008 9:09:51 AM

good summary socks. I didnt know that.

Oh and for you obama supporters who constantly bitch about Bush and republican "fear monggering" but then give obama a pass when he tells seniors that McCain will mess with thier SS. Dems pull that shit every election cycle.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 9:24:35 AM

Thanks guys. I wrote a cleaned up version and sent it off to a couple of friends of mine that love to forward political shit. I'm hoping it goes viral. Stupdier things have found a wider audeince.

Though I'm less concerned with flip-flopping than I am with the prospect of a President who sets his foreign policy goals on opinion polls.

PS* eyebrd, I agree. Dems bitch about "fear mongerring" from the Republicans, but they have been beating the drum that McCain will invade Iran (remember he made a bad joke!), slash SS and Medicare (he didn't actually say it, but he maybe he could have!), then launch a suprise attack on the USSR (get it? cause he's so old!!!).

Really, it's the same kinda stuff I complained about the Republicans doing to John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain and Al Gore in 2000. The Dems have learned the lessons of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater too well. Now I am left without a party. It's sad.

5/19/2008 9:55:28 AM

so how's his preacher doing these days.

5/19/2008 11:00:58 AM

Good article comparing Obama and Clinton's 2007 senate records - specifically the bills they introduced/passed. Didn't have time to go through all the links to verify the author's assertions, but an interesting read nonetheless:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Basically the 2007 senate records suggest that Obama, not Clinton, was better at getting bills introduced, co-sponsored, and passed. It also shows that a considerable number of bills introduced by Clinton, most noteably on healthcare, were not only defeated... they were also lacking any co-sponsors.

5/19/2008 12:22:55 PM

Quote :

"Seventy five thousand people showed up to see Obama's biggest yet speech in Portland, Oregon yesterday. Firstly, that represents something like one-seventh the entire population of Portland and undoubtedly the biggest-ever congregation of fixed-gear bicycles."

haha.

5/19/2008 1:03:58 PM

Wow, look at all those white people. At least Oregon is not racist.

5/19/2008 1:05:23 PM

^^^ Welcome to 3 months ago brother.
We already went through an extended discussion of this back on page 7 or 8. And as I pointed out then, Obama has actually only introduced 3 bills that passed the Senate. Here they are:

Quote :

" [110th] S.CON.RES.25 : A concurrent resolution condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/29/2007) [110th] S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/28/2007) [110th] S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day". Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/11/2007)"

http://thomas.loc.gov/.

Pretty damn sorry.

The problem is Kos is only comparing Clinton and Obama's record in 2007 (an unfair comparison really, since Hillary has been in the Senate much longer than Obama) and deciding that he likes the CONTENT of those bills better than Hillary and noting that Obama's bills had more co-sponsors (apparently a proxy for "leadership" and "coallition building" skills).

In reality both Hillary's and Obama's records pale in comparison to John McCain's. The example that is closest to my heart is that McCain introduced the first bill that proposed a cap-and-trade system for reducing GHG emissions (a bill Obama initially co-sponsored back in 2007, but apparently now thinks is a bad idea).

If you want to argue who has a more extensive record, McCain will always win. Your next best option is to say that experience doesn't count and that Obama's ideas are better. But you would be pretty lonely company there too (tax oil companies as a responce to high gas prices?). So I recommend following everyone else's example. Play up his mushy qualities that no one can really define or quantify: his speaking ability, his "judgement", how he will be a "new face" of America to the world.

This is a pretty sorry candidate your party has chosen for you. But you gotta make the best of it at this point, I guess.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:11 PM. Reason : To Erios]

5/19/2008 1:07:44 PM

other mushy attributes: he doesn't treat voters like they're retards. (eg: gas tax holiday)

and as far as bills go. let's see a list of ALL the bills passed by the senate in those years. it's not that many. the wonders of the filibuster have kept most (substantive) bills from ever going to a vote.


[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:10 PM. Reason : subst.]

5/19/2008 1:09:14 PM

^ Wait. So Obama can ONLY get a bill passed if there are no Republicans to object??? What about that mushy "uniting" power he has?

5/19/2008 1:14:02 PM

i'm saying hardly anyone has been able to get bills passed in the past couple years.

AND it's easier to dictate conversation from the bully pulpit than as a senator

Quote :

"Wait. So Obama can ONLY get a bill passed if there are no Republicans to object"

i blame the republicans and the democratic leadership for letting this filibuster crap halt our senate for so long.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 1:14:37 PM

Like I said. Obama claims to be a uniter that will work across the aisle to get things done. Are you saying that he hasn't been successful in that respect as a Senator?

5/19/2008 1:16:03 PM

Id really wish he would pass around a collection plate to those morons instead of proposing to TAKE my money without my permission.

5/19/2008 1:16:36 PM

^^sure. if that'll get the GOTCHA that you so desperately seem to need, then congratulations.

^last time i checked, we're in a representative democracy.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 1:17:34 PM

Hey. It's not a matter of "gotcha", I'm just pointing out how empty the arguments for Obama are.

Obama claims he will work across the aisle to get things done, but if you look at his record, he's actually not been very bi-partisan at all. And that is the case of his record going all the way back to IL.

On experience, Obama fails. On legislative accomplishments, Obama fails. On policies, Obama fails. If he wasn't so damn fun to listen too, he would never have gotten this far. Welcome to the MTV generation's answer to JFK. Saints preserve us.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:23 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 1:21:43 PM

I'm white, I make money, and have a brain. I guess that naturally excludes me from Obamas support group.

5/19/2008 1:22:40 PM

(hey guys I IMPLIED THAT OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE STUPID HARHARHAH)

5/19/2008 1:24:40 PM

Quote :

"i blame the republicans and the democratic leadership for letting this filibuster crap halt our senate for so long."

-sarijoul

I think there is something about being in the majority that radicalizes people. Doesn't anyone else remember how pissed off the Dems were when the Republicans threatended to remove their ability to filibuster? I thought the Dems had a legit point (and chances are sarijoul pissed and moaned about it too).

Filibusters are back road blocks for cramming the whims of the majority down the minorities throat. That's why I like filibusters and it's why Dems liked them in 2004. But now that the shoe is on the other foot...well...the Dems can't get over their divine mandate to solve the problems of the common working man.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 1:28:45 PM

the difference is that the republican party (at least was) far more unified in their filibustering efforts. i give them credit for that. i think it will come back to them come november though.

5/19/2008 1:30:55 PM

in conclusion, anybody thinking the republican congress was bad, should take a step back and realize what a piece of shit this liberal congress has been.

the economy is starting to tank and they are letting it happen in order to get votes in november. any schmuk can see right through it though. so i'm not worried.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 1:31:58 PM

The difference...for what? Whether filibusters are good or bad?

5/19/2008 1:32:06 PM

between the D efforts when they were the minority and the R efforts these days.

Quote :

"the economy is starting to tank and they are letting it happen in order to get votes in november. any schmuk can see right through it though. so i'm not worried."

tell that to the voters in all the special elections so far.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 1:33:50 PM

Quote :

"the economy is starting to tank and they are letting it happen in order to get votes in november."

I don't think this is the case to be honest. I don't think there's much anyone can do in the short term to fix things. Also, many long term fixes are shots in the dark, and often look bad in the short term.


And Rat, why are you bitching about congress not doing anything for the economy? Aren't you a free market republican? Gov't meddling in the economy is bad, remember?

5/19/2008 1:35:18 PM

NOT A CULT OF PERSONALITY!

5/19/2008 1:37:38 PM

Quote :

"Play up his mushy qualities: his speaking ability, his "judgement", how he will be a "new face" of America to the world."

Judgment and making Americans look good in the world are "mushy qualities"? You're the reason the system has become so rife with incest.

McCain has almost 30 years on Obama, and has been in the senate since 1982. If congressional bills is your metric for qualification, by default, McCain wins. And by the same shallow logic, he would be one of the best presidents, ever, if he got elected. By his current set of ideas, he has no creativity or ambition. His position on everything seems to be wait it out, essentially what Bush has been doing, and overall things are stagnant, getting worse, or slowing down. And this mentality of fear of the unknown is fairly typical of people his age. You won't find many companies hiring on people as old as McCain to actually lead them, no matter how great they may have been, for various reasons.

5/19/2008 1:38:44 PM

OMG POPULAR POLITICIAN PULL OUT HITLER AND MANSON COMPARISONS

5/19/2008 1:38:57 PM

yes i am pro free market. but if congress has the ability to get up to the pulpit every day of the week and bitch about drilling for oil more to scare the shit out of OPEC to lower their prices from their biggest customer in the world.... they better damn well start bitching about drilling.


all they have to do is mention the word "drill". not even implement. and gas/food/services prices will plummet.


are they talking about that? no. they are trying to scare us into voting for the democrats again so we can have a magical green environment and polar bears roaming free again.

wtf. get serious

5/19/2008 1:42:41 PM

Drilling for more oil is neither a short term fix nor a long term fix so your point doesn't really make much sense.

Instead of passing laws that increase fuel standards we should get laws pass that increase the number of cars that don't use gasoline and instead use something that is renewable (or at least something like electricity which can come from multiple sources).

You're such a negative nancy, Rat! Be proactive for once.

5/19/2008 1:47:34 PM

^ moron,

Yes, I said that legislative accomplishments are the only metric for choosing a President. That's exactly what I said...in not so many words. Or those words at all actually. I also contradicted earilier posts in this very thread where I said there is more to being President than how many bills you pass.

Way to Win!

Like I actually said in the original post, Obama fails on all the major qualities you can argue about with facts and figures. My personal biggest grip is that his policies are crap. The only economic policy "proposal" he has had that's gotten wide support from economists was opposing the gas tax holiday (though even they admit it was more symbolic than anything). Let's see how they feel about renegotiating NAFTA, taxing "windfall" profits of oil comapnies, his health care plan, etc. And don't get me started again on the fact that he has taken 6 different policy positions on the Iraq War. If you disagree, pick a policy proposal and defend it.

That only leaves mushy qualities, meaning things you can only "feel" or "sense". You can't demonstrate that he is inspiring. You can't prove that being black or growing up over seas will aid his ability to deal with otehr countries. These are only things you can feel and sense.

And I think that's pretty damn sorry. After 8 years of Bush is this REALLY the best we can do?

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM. Reason : ``]

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 1:48:03 PM

all they have to do is mention the word "drill". not even implement. opec will beg for forgiveness and lower prices

5/19/2008 1:50:38 PM

Quote :

"Yes, I said that legislative accomplishments are the only metric for choosing a President. That's exactly what I said...in not so many words. Or those words at all actually. I also contradicted earilier posts in this very thread where I said there is more to being President than how many bills you pass. "

That's basically what you're implying with most of your posts here.

Quote :

"My personal biggest grip is that his policies are crap. The only economic policy "proposal" he has had that's gotten wide support from economists was opposing the gas tax holiday (though even they admit it was more symbolic than anything). Let's see how they feel about renegotiating NAFTA, taxing "windfall" profits of oil comapnies, his health care plan, etc. And don't get me started again on the fact that has taken 6 different policy positions on the Iraq War. If you disagree, pick a policy proposal and defend it. "

By the standards you're using to determine the 6 different policies thing, you can make any person out to be a flip-flopper. The video spookyjon posted has McCain jumping around on issues in a time span less than the 4 years you're trying to pin Obama with.

Quote :

"That only leaves mushy qualities, meaning things you can only "feel" or "sense". You can't demonstrate that he is inspiring. You can't prove that being black or growing up over seas will aid his ability to deal with otehr countries. These are only things you can feel and sense. "

You can demonstrate he's inspiring, by the crowds he draws, and the turnout he draws. Being black and growing up overseas has very little to do with him being better with other countries. By virtue of the fact that he would even talk about attempting diplomatic negotiations with other countries makes him 100x better than Bush and McCain in this regard.

5/19/2008 1:57:51 PM

Former Klansman Endorses Obama!

Quote :

"Sen. Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in American history, announced Monday he is endorsing Barack Obama's White House bid. Byrd, 90, has served as West Virginia's senator for nearly fifty years, and is one of the chamber's most vocal critics on the war in Iraq. "After a great deal of thought, consideration and prayer over the situation in Iraq, I have decided that, as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will cast my vote for Senator Barack Obama for President," Byrd said in a statement released by his office. "Both Senators Clinton and Obama are extraordinary individuals, whose integrity, honor, love for this country and strong belief in our Constitution I deeply respect." "I believe that Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history," Byrd also said. "Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support." The endorsement is not without symbolism. Byrd was a leader of the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan as a young man and was, along with several southern Democrats, an opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He has since denounced his previous views on racial segregation. West Virginia's other senator, Jay Rockefeller, endorsed Obama earlier this year. Hillary Clinton carried the state by 41 points last week."

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 1:58:54 PM

^ maybe in the eyes of the racists, he cancels out Wright

5/19/2008 2:01:18 PM

if I was Obama, Clinton or McCain, i wouldn't want that endorsement

5/19/2008 2:01:56 PM

Byrd: Sorry about all that Klan business. . .heh (crickets).

Byrd: "There are white niggers. I've see a lot of white niggers in my time."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0FIBJt-c2o0



[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 2:08:36 PM

Before I get back to doing work, it struck me that some people may think I am exagerating when I say Obama's supporters best arguments for him come down to identity (color of his skin, where he grew up) and speaking ability. Well, here are a few examples...

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek in his article supporting Obama, "The Power of Personality"

Quote :

"There's a debate taking place about what matters most when making judgments about foreign policy— experience and expertise on the one hand, or personal identity on the other. And I find myself coming down on the side of identity... Obama's argument is about more than identity. He was intelligent and prescient about the costs of the Iraq War. But he says that his judgment was formed by his experience as a boy with a Kenyan father—and later an Indonesian stepfather—who spent four years growing up in Indonesia, and who lived in the multicultural swirl of Hawaii. I never thought I'd agree with Obama. I've spent my life acquiring formal expertise on foreign policy. I've got fancy degrees, have run research projects, taught in colleges and graduate schools, edited a foreign-affairs journal, advised politicians and businessmen, written columns and cover stories, and traveled hundreds of thousands of miles all over the world. I've never thought of my identity as any kind of qualification. I've never written an article that contains the phrase "As an Indian-American ..." or "As a person of color ..." But when I think about what is truly distinctive about the way I look at the world, about the advantage that I may have over others in understanding foreign affairs, it is that I know what it means not to be an American. "

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic in his article on "Why Obama Matters".

Quote :

"The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama. It has little to do with his policy proposals, which are very close to his Democratic rivals’ and which, with a few exceptions, exist firmly within the conventions of our politics. It has little to do with Obama’s considerable skills as a conciliator, legislator, or even thinker. It has even less to do with his ideological pedigree or legal background or rhetorical skills. Yes, as the many profiles prove, he has considerable intelligence and not a little guile. But so do others, not least his formidably polished and practiced opponent Senator Hillary Clinton.... What does he offer? First and foremost: his face....Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can. "

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

These are the two articles that always stick out in my mind. If anyone has any more, please share.

If you want to find any article supporting a single policy proposal of Obama's you'll be much more hardpressed. So please believe me. When I say the arguments in favor of Obama, be assured that I am not making this shit up.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ``]

5/19/2008 2:08:43 PM

Quote :

"If you want to find any article supporting a single policy proposal of Obama's you'll be much more hardpressed."

i think that's because very few publications are focusing on policy proposals right now. the horse race between obama and clinton is easier to cover and will likely get more readers.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM. Reason : and yes i think that's a problem]

5/19/2008 2:26:14 PM

Obama tells Tenn.'s GOP: 'Lay off my wife'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wife
---


Let me get this straight. She's allowed to participate in the campaign, but nobody can question her?

Fuck you Obama.

5/19/2008 4:17:22 PM

i kinda agree with you on that one. if she's going to be campaigning for her husband, then the press (or whomever) can pull her into this.

BUT, this "unpatriotic" criticism is utterly ridiculous.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 4:20:21 PM