Dream on, Libtard!

what a great op-ed, and what a fantastic endorsement. a LOT of people are making comparisons between JFK and Obama, and rightfully so. Both men inspired people from all walks of life to dream, to hope, to come together to try to make this country the best it can be. They are charismatic unifying leaders, and ones we can be proud of.

ndotseth: Dream on, Libtard!

How eloquent.

This is not only a good endorsement, but that is one hell of an editorial for him.

Interesting article.

I think Obama is capable of great things, both good and bad, and I think that Hillary is Hillary and would continue to be Hillary.

The Republican bunch of candidates is one of the most pathetic I've seen since I can't remember when. Huckabee? Seriously?

Echoic: This is not only a good endorsement, but that is one hell of an editorial for him.

Indeed. And coming on the heels of his lastest victory, it's gonna hurt hillary something fierce.

This has to be driving team clinton bonkers. Hillary was supposed to just waltz into the white house. there wasn't supposed to BE an opposition candidate. Especially from within her own party. Obama is the thorn in her side that simply will not go away.

Very interesting. I'll get to see this effect in person later today, since I get to see him give a speech. Should be fun.

Weaver95: Obama is the thorn in her side Mount Everest that simply will not go away.

FTFY

GAT_00: Very interesting. I'll get to see this effect in person later today, since I get to see him give a speech. Should be fun.

Enjoy yourself, his speeches are awesome.

GAT_00: Very interesting. I'll get to see this effect in person later today, since I get to see him give a speech. Should be fun.

Cool, where at?

Weaver95: it's gonna hurt hillary something fierce...

This has to be driving team clinton bonkers.

Seriously, now...isn't this reason enough to support Obama?

Enough for me...

08AMA!!!!

Echoic: GAT_00: Very interesting. I'll get to see this effect in person later today, since I get to see him give a speech. Should be fun.

Cool, where at?

UAB Arena, 1:30 I think.

TheCid: Enjoy yourself, his speeches are awesome.

I intend to.

I don't think anyone's disputed that Obama's a great motivational speaker. The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.

Churchill2004: I don't think anyone's disputed that Obama's a great motivational speaker. The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.

Bush is a great demotivating speaker.

monty666: Bush is a great demotivating speaker.

McCain can give a pretty good speech, too.

Churchill2004: The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.

There's plenty of evidence. Use Google or ask specifically where you think he would fail and I can provide you with evidence.

monty666: The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.

You are right if only he had Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Hillary Clinton experience. If only the bastard did something productive in life like teaching constitutional law or organizing programs in under developed regions. If only he had the patience and grace when his opponents were distorting his views and records. Why doesn't he call out the republicans a lot more? He always seems to take the high road when it comes to people who oppose his views? My god why is this man given a platform?

monty666Churchill2004: The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.

You are right if only he had Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Hillary Clinton experience. If only the bastard did something productive in life like teaching constitutional law or organizing programs in under developed regions. If only he had the patience and grace when his opponents were distorting his views and records. Why doesn't he call out the republicans a lot more? He always seems to take the high road when it comes to people who oppose his views? My god why is this man given a platform?

woah fixed it for me

SeismicJizzer: You are right if only he had Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Hillary Clinton experience.

It has nothing to do with "experience"- it has to do with bad policy proposals.

And he's not nearly as innocent and apolitical as you seem to think he is.

Churchill2004: And he's not nearly as innocent and apolitical as you seem to think he is.

You mean he is human?

"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president."



Sure, why not?

SeismicJizzer: Churchill2004: And he's not nearly as innocent and apolitical as you seem to think he is.

You mean he is human?

No, I mean the record indicates that he's no better than the same Washington scumbags people seem to think he's going to run out of town. He hasn't voted to end the Iraq War. He voted for the Patriot Act. He hasn't done much of anything to separate himself from the other Democrats in Congress.

Other than the fact that he's a good speaker.

Churchill2004: SeismicJizzer: You are right if only he had Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Hillary Clinton experience.

It has nothing to do with "experience"- it has to do with bad policy proposals.

And he's not nearly as innocent and apolitical as you seem to think he is.

Well not everyone can have good policy proposals like repealing the equal rights amendment

StopArrestingMe: Well not everyone can have good policy proposals like repealing the equal rights amendment

The ERA never passed.

I could make a comment about how this demonstrates the average awareness of Obama supporters on the actual issues, but making ad hominem attacks on candidate's supporters is something I'll leave to the Paul haters.

Churchill2004: I don't think anyone's disputed that Obama's a great motivational speaker. The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.

Sometimes that's all you need. The man who was the inspiration for your screen name, for example. His policies really weren't that great. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he returned Britain to the gold standard, which was a disaster. As First Lord of the Admiralty he was responsible for Gallipoli, also a disaster. He opposed Indian independence and decolinisation.

But he is remembered as Britain's greatest leader because he united the country when it was needed with just words. In its darkest days his words were all that the country had and he pulled them through. He made them reach higher and gave them hope.

Churchill2004: StopArrestingMe: Well not everyone can have good policy proposals like repealing the equal rights amendment

The ERA never passed.

I could make a comment about how this demonstrates the average awareness of Obama supporters on the actual issues, but making ad hominem attacks on candidate's supporters is something I'll leave to the Paul haters.

Not an Obama supporter, just a guy who makes snarky comments to annoy people like 90% of fark. And you did make that comment ;)

Churchill2004: He hasn't voted to end the Iraq War

1. There are not enough votes to override a veto from bush.

2. If they take the funding out prematurely...goodbye democrat party, the republicans will eat them alive with this one.

He voted for the Patriot Act.

That is a farking non-issue and you know it. There is too many behind the scenes scenarios involved it will take forever just to debate about, but make no mistake the minute he gets in office the patriot act will be removed. Hillary and Edwards will do the same. People are not outraged over this one

He hasn't done much of anything to separate himself from the other Democrats in Congress.

Good I am glad we established he is an old-fashioned liberal... I am okay with that

SeismicJizzer: 1. There are not enough votes to override a veto from bush.

2. If they take the funding out prematurely...goodbye democrat party, the republicans will eat them alive with this one

I'd dispute that heavily (pass the funding, but with mandatory withdrawal. That makes the only thing standing between soldiers and funding Bush's veto), it's beside the point- he placed political maneuvering over (what he claims to be) principles.

SeismicJizzer: That is a farking non-issue and you know it.

No, it's not. He voted for a blatantly unconstitutional bill that infringes on American civil liberties in exchange for a meaningless "compromise". Again, he placed political maneuvering over principles.

SeismicJizzer: Good I am glad we established he is an old-fashioned liberal and standard-issue Washington political hack... I am okay with that


FTFY

thisispete: But he is remembered as Britain's greatest leader because he united the country when it was needed with just words.

I'd imagine winning WWII has a lot more to do with that. His gifted oratory was simply the public face of his brilliant direction of the war effort.

Churchill2004: I'd dispute that heavily (pass the funding, but with mandatory withdrawal. That makes the only thing standing between soldiers and funding Bush's veto),

Are you kidding me? Frivolous shiat like Willie Norton dropped a 17-point lead Dukakis to an embarrassment. Swift boat attacks from douches that were not in Kerry's boat farked him over. All the republicans need to do is show ads around the clock of death and destruction in Iraq within the region and goodbye democrat party

No, it's not. He voted for a blatantly unconstitutional bill that infringes on American civil liberties in exchange for a meaningless "compromise". Again, he placed political maneuvering over principles.

Ugh, I don't know if you noticed but Obama got more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined from last week! If this was an issue he wouldn't be giving Hillary a run for her money, and please you live in a dream world if you believe anyone lived their life in strict abstract principles, politians live in the real world where issues are complicated and not yes or no votes, the man is not Gandhi

Good I am glad we established he is an old-fashioned liberal and standard-issue Washington political hack... I am okay with that

Jesus the man has lived there for 3 years and already he is a washington hack? Then Hillary, Edwards, and the rest of the republican candidates are shiat out of luck with those rules

All I know, and all I care to know, was that Obama was the only farken Democratic candidate that could speak with confidence about how long it would take to pull our dicks out of Iraq.

It's important to me because it shows he's the only candidate on the Democratic side that actually read intelligence reports BEFORE he decided to run for president.

It's sad that that's shooting high these days in America, but hey the man reads...that's good enough for me. It certainly isn't shattering my expectations, but this country's abundance of farking morons makes it mandatory to shoot low and hope for the best.

Hillary? HILLARY? Jesus farken christ what the hell is wrong with the Democrats these days? Not enough losses to date against a farken guy that couldn't construct a cabin out of Lincoln Logs?

SeismicJizzer: Ugh, I don't know if you noticed but Obama got more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined from last week!



SeismicJizzer: Jesus the man has lived there for 3 years and already he is a washington hack?

It has nothing to do with how long he's been there. It's what he's done while he's been there- which doesn't match up to the Messiah complex he and his supporters seem to have.

SeismicJizzer: All the republicans need to do is show ads around the clock of death and destruction in Iraq within the region and goodbye democrat party

Yeah, a sure-fire way to drum up popular support for a war is to run ads showing death and destruction.

Churchill2004: It has nothing to do with how long he's been there. It's what he's done while he's been there- which doesn't match up to the Messiah complex he and his supporters seem to have.

You know, when you have someone who's main message is bipartisan cooperation, attacking him for not being an adversarial "stand alone" politician isn't terribly effective.

Obama's campaign has been all about "let's put aside our differences and come together to make things better". Having him play maverick would be stupid - as well as not matching his message. The reality is, he has tried to work with both sides of the aisle, as demonstrated with the Patriot Act. You claim he is sacrificing his principles for compromise. Compromise IS his principle.

Bhruic: You know, when you have someone who's main message is bipartisan cooperation, attacking him for not being an adversarial "stand alone" politician isn't terribly effective.

Obama's campaign has been all about "let's put aside our differences and come together to make things better". Having him play maverick would be stupid - as well as not matching his message. The reality is, he has tried to work with both sides of the aisle, as demonstrated with the Patriot Act. You claim he is sacrificing his principles for compromise. Compromise IS his principle.

That's fine. That also means he's not an "agent of change". Harsh election-time rhetoric aside, crappy compromises are already the rule in Washington. "Bipartisanship" is the nice catchphrase for "Let's stop fighting each other and gangrape the American people instead".

Churchill2004: That's fine. That also means he's not an "agent of change". Harsh election-time rhetoric aside, crappy compromises are already the rule in Washington. "Bipartisanship" is the nice catchphrase for "Let's stop fighting each other and gangrape the American people instead".

I'd agree that compromise happens a fair amount in Congress. But let's be honest, we haven't seen a lot of compromise happening in the White House recently.

Bhruic: But let's be honest, we haven't seen a lot of compromise happening in the White House recently.

That'd be fine if Obama was running as the anti-Bush. He's not, though. Anyone can truthfully claim to be a "change" compared to Bush, including the Hildabeast. Obama's claiming something much wider than that. He's running as an "agent of change" compared to the establishment. An establishment where shiatty compromise is the norm, not a radical new idea.

GObama!

Churchill2004: That'd be fine if Obama was running as the anti-Bush. He's not, though. Anyone can truthfully claim to be a "change" compared to Bush, including the Hildabeast. Obama's claiming something much wider than that. He's running as an "agent of change" compared to the establishment. An establishment where shiatty compromise is the norm, not a radical new idea.

At this point it looks like you are just looking for minor flaws to magnify. Reality is, most of the candidates are promising "change" at this point. The type of "change" that Obama is promising is more consensual compromise coming from the oval office. Which is something different than most of the other candidates are promising. Considering the Bush administration has been in power for 7 years now, that pretty much makes them the "establishment".

I'm obviously not going to change your mind, since you've already pre-decided that you dislike him. But I think you're being pretty close-minded about it. I have no more idea what'll happen if Obama actually wins than you do. But giving him a bit of the benefit of the doubt doesn't seem like an outrageous idea.

I haven't heard Obama utter anything even close to this...

SeismicJizzer: woah fixed it for me

I was going to say something.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Obama is imitating Kenedy or Luther-King like Hill-dog imitated blacks at times. It makes me cringe a bit.

But Obama at least appears to have decent set of principles, and that is more important than experience in my eyes.

Dancin_In_Anson: I haven't heard Obama utter anything even close to this...

Give it about a year and you will.

Churchill2004: McCain can give a pretty good speech, too.

McCain's speeches all sound like this:

"I supported the war. I have the most national security experience. Support the troops.....uh.....what was I saying? Oh yeah. WAR!"

Bhruic: At this point it looks like you are just looking for minor flaws to magnify.

It's not "minor flaws"- it's that the basis of his campaign and his support is a sham.

Bhruic: Reality is, most of the candidates are promising "change" at this point.

And amazingly enough, the one the best orator and most believable sounding candidate is the one who's getting all the "change" support.

Bhruic: The type of "change" that Obama is promising is more consensual compromise coming from the oval office. Which is something different than most of the other candidates are promising. Considering the Bush administration has been in power for 7 years now, that pretty much makes them the "establishment"

In other words, he's only a change compared to the current idiot in the White House, not all the other idiots that hold elected office.

Bhruic: I'm obviously not going to change your mind, since you've already pre-decided that you dislike him

"Pre-decided" in that I already knew everything I'm saying before this conversation started, I suppose. I will say that I used to be willing to admit Obama was an honest guy, probably more honest than most. Back then I still said I would never vote for him based on his policy positions. So, no, my opinion that he's a sham is not tied to my position that his policy positions are wrong.

Churchill2004: I don't think anyone's disputed that Obama's a great motivational speaker. The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.

We live in an age where those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

haplo53: Churchill2004: I don't think anyone's disputed that Obama's a great motivational speaker. The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.

We live in an age where those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I didn't say they were. There's not an automatic correlation, either.

Churchill2004 I don't think anyone's disputed that Obama's a great motivational speaker. The issue is the fact that there's little evidence he'd be a great President.
thisispete Sometimes that's all you need. The man who was the inspiration for your screen name, for example. His policies really weren't that great. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he returned Britain to the gold standard, which was a disaster. As First Lord of the Admiralty he was responsible for Gallipoli, also a disaster. He opposed Indian independence and decolinisation.

But he is remembered as Britain's greatest leader because he united the country when it was needed with just words. In its darkest days his words were all that the country had and he pulled them through. He made them reach higher and gave them hope.

Public perception, and hope. Indeed.

/"We have been waiting to cross the Channel. So have the fish."

Churchill2004: Bhruic: But let's be honest, we haven't seen a lot of compromise happening in the White House recently.

That'd be fine if Obama was running as the anti-Bush. He's not, though. Anyone can truthfully claim to be a "change" compared to Bush, including the Hildabeast. Obama's claiming something much wider than that. He's running as an "agent of change" compared to the establishment. An establishment where shiatty compromise is the norm, not a radical new idea.

One, everyone is running as the anti-bush in one way or another. COmpromise is how Congress works. What were the crappy compromises?

Churchill2004: There's not an automatic correlation, either.

In the mass media age? I disagree. Policy alone can no longer make a president great.

I love how everyone wants to talk about how things like hope, leadership, and vision are illusory things that don't matter in the White House. I think it's funny that people don't see dignity and poise as valuable leadership skills anymore.

When Obama becomes President he will face the toughest fights from day one; Washington will try and wear him down because of his bi-racial ethnicity, because of his liberalism, because of his youth, and because he is not a part of the Washington Lobbying Conglomerate that desperately tries to run this country. How in the hell do you wish that on yourself, your family, and your supporters if you don't already know you can get it done? How do you listen to the "fairy tale" comments and the "false hopes" jabs and still want to be in the fight?

Because hope, faith, leadership, dedication, vision and dignity aren't ancilliary presidential traits. Hope, faith, leadership, dedication, vision and dignity are what the job is all about - and Hillary doesn't have any of it, Giuliani doesn't have it, Romney doesn't have it, Edwards doesn't have it, Huckabee doesn't have it and McCain allowed his to be tainted by people like the President, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove; none of whom ever had it.

Obama 2008.