Somebody wants to watch a flamewar.

Not true. I believe that Obama once did indeed blame it on the rain.

Am I the only one who enjoyed the Milli Vanilli stuff and just didn't care who it was that actually performed?

They've spent so much time and effort attacking Hillary, not expecting Obama to be such a threat, that they're really scrambling now.

Philbb: Am I the only one who enjoyed the Milli Vanilli stuff and just didn't care who it was that actually performed?

*raises hand*

Obama's campaign finances have never been in the red. He knows how to balance a check book. Whereas Hillary... Call it a slight difference.

She can govern neither her own house nor her campaign in any responsible fashion. By all means, give her the keys to 1600. You'll be glad you did.

"Vote for me! I let some whore suck my man's cock and stood by his side the whole time to get my turn to be President!"

Can't you just smell the leadership and vision? Smells like... Halibut.

Ba-ba-ba-ba, ba-ba-barack baby!

These people obviously subscribe to the Balance of Virtues notion - that is, like a character created for an RPG, if Obama has +12 Charisma, he must be low on points elsewhere. Utter nonsense, of course, but it's a narrative that's desperately being created.

kmmontandon: These people obviously subscribe to the Balance of Virtues notion - that is, like a character created for an RPG, if Obama has +12 Charisma, he must be low on points elsewhere. Utter nonsense, of course, but it's a narrative that's desperately being created.

Hah. I like.

Is this Fark trying to pretend you live in the world of Idiocracy?

Not biting.

Phil Moskowitz: Is this Fark trying to pretend you live in the world of Idiocracy?

Not biting.

Shut up, I'm batin.

I find it impossible to believe that the editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn't have anything substantial with his name on it from then (the George Washington Law Review requires not 1, but 2 essay contests each requiring 20+ papers on various public policy and legal questions to be an editor). (From link in TFA)

All style, no substance.

kmmontandon: These people obviously subscribe to the Balance of Virtues notion - that is, like a character created for an RPG, if Obama has +12 Charisma, he must be low on points elsewhere. Utter nonsense, of course, but it's a narrative that's desperately being created.

not sure what you mean, but i once created a character who had all 15s (this was the frist ed. of AD&D; i have no idea what it is like now); just so i could have a guy who didn't get any bonuses to rolls. or something. aaag, i can't rememeber but there was some rule that had to do w/ rolling on attributes . . . ah, i don't remember enough to make this make sense.
but you were saying?

Milli Vanilli had better hair.

Fair_Poopsmith: Philbb: Am I the only one who enjoyed the Milli Vanilli stuff and just didn't care who it was that actually performed?

*raises hand*

hope you two are the only 2

Does this mean that Hillary Clinton is like Ashley Simpson. I mean, both are riding the coattails of a relative that is more famous, and both have a vagina.

/neither have a Grammy.

Wow, this article reeks of desperation and fear.

/if he didnt have nagger hair he definitely would have been JFK

Barack has much better taste in suits.


Fig. 1
Poor taste

FTFA: And forget "change." He's just lip-synching the old liberal standards.

The change Obama talks of is not a government program, it's a change of attitude.

It's the idea that the political opposition is not a foe to be beaten and crushed, but rather a friend who views some things differently than we do. The Republicans are not the enemy, they are the opposition.

It's about not blaming the other side for what's wrong, but working with the other side to fix what's wrong. It's not about getting only what we want, it's about compromise -- compromise that may be slanted towards our side, but compromise nonetheless. It's a return to the idea that the majority does not rule, the majority governs.

How can Clinton bring about this change, when she is the one who spoke of a "vast right-wing conspiracy"? She is no more qualified to be the standard-bearer of change than George Bush is.

It's a good thing that Obama's plans are more liberal than moderate -- the result of bipartisanship between moderates is half-measures that satisfy nobody. We need liberals and conservatives to work together, not slightly-left-leaning moderates and slightly-right-leaning moderates.

We need a leader. Clinton would be an executive, and in my opinion she would be a fine one. But right now, we need a leader more.

Madadder: /neither have a Grammy.

Hillary Clinton won a Grammy for the audio recording of "It Takes A Village"

Ye Gods, it would be SO awesome if he got the nom, and the best the republicans could bring against him is pathetic, crybaby shouts of "HE JUST TALKS PRETTY!!!! HE DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING!!"

/sweet, sweet music
//Girl, you know it's true.
///Ooh, Ooh, Ooh I love you.

Andric: Barack has much better taste in suits.
Fig. 1
Poor taste

Yes, and Obama actually looks like a dude. Milli Vanilli guy on the left looks like he should be a she teaching feminist theory at an urban community colllege. Guy on right should be his less attractive, somewhat bitter younger sister who can't get anyone to come to her poetry reading nights.

What Would Emilio Estevez Do: Ba-ba-ba-ba, ba-ba-barack baby!

Don't forget my number!

/2025 by May '08

I mean, seriously, Hillary's assertion that the votes for Obama from the Red States are meaningless is pretty much EXACTLY the opposite of Obama's message, isn't it?

There's certainly a valid point to be made about how the Obama campaign is fueled more by grandiose rhetoric and public persona than actual substance, but only insofar as to point out that without the grandiose rhetoric and public persona- Obama isn't all that different for a candidate whose message is "Change We Can Believe In". It's not so much that Obama is all that bad himself, I'll readily admit he's better than Hillary and McCain, but rather that he isn't nearly as good as the vastly overinflated impression of some sort of national savior that his campaign and his supporters are putting out.

Barack Obama is all image and no substance, writes Bob Owens.

submitter, and who may this bob owens be?

kmmontandon: These people obviously subscribe to the Balance of Virtues notion - that is, like a character created for an RPG, if Obama has +12 Charisma, he must be low on points elsewhere. Utter nonsense, of course, but it's a narrative that's desperately being created.

robotfolksinger: There's a joke being sorely missed there about "Constitution."

Meanwhile in the Clinton Camp...



/For the Horde... I think.

Churchill2004: but rather that he isn't nearly as good as the vastly overinflated impression of some sort of national savior that his campaign and his supporters are putting out.

Sorry that the douchebag from Texas is losing out to Huckabee, of all people. Sorry also that you don't seem to get that Americans want leaders who can tell us what we can do and what's good about the other Americans in political life, rather than being ridiculously and obnoxiously negative about every person who doesn't share your particular views.

Meh. I would have liked to see John Edwards get the nomination, as I think corporate influence on government is the source of most of the US's problems. (for example, the war in Iraq, health care, and government spending). Still, Obama is the second best candidate, as I doubt Nader could actually get elected.

Most anti-Obama rhetoric, this link included, is obvious propaganda designed to funnel support to Clinton or McCain. This "PajamasMedia" site really needs to stop getting linked, as it's way too politically biased to be credible.

Despite the uniting messianic figure that he plays on stage and in front of the cameras, Obama's actual voting record has established him as the most radical leftist in the United States senate, to the left of Joe Biden, self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, and the epitome of nanny-state limousine liberalism, Ted Kennedy.

Far from being a centrist, Obama is a radical on hot-button issues.

Ah, so there's at least one person willing to buy BS hook, line, and sinker. Anyone that looked at the National Journal's standards for their evaluation and can call Obama left of Sanders or Feingold is smoking some powerful stuff.

Also, the repeat claims of 'no substance' are, by this point, ridiculous. Ignorance is no excuse.

Hahahaha it descended into essentially just calling him a liberal. That's cute. Get ready for a thrashing.

Whatsleft: Hahahaha it descended into essentially just calling him a liberal. That's cute. Get ready for a thrashing.

Not in the least. Don't you remember 2004? "First and third most liberal Senators..." repeated ad nauseum as soon as Kerry picked Edwards for his running mate. And that was just the start. All of their heavy hitters came out later. First they paint the four-letter word "Liberal" on you, then they start the heavy attacks.

The Republican Party will have tons to whip out on Obama through their 529s - drug use, living abroad, "lack of experience" - and those are just the things we know about.

Obama's only real hope is to call out the attack ads for what they are - attack ads from the "old Washington" mindset - and get people to ignore them. Otherwise he's going to have a hard time staying positive in his message while being pounded on all sides by the 529s.

/Obama supporter and donator
//worried about what the Republicans are going to do this Fall

D'oh.

s/529/527

Sorry 'bout that. The point still stands, I was just off-by-two.

Blame it on the... reign?

captainktainer: Churchill2004: but rather that he isn't nearly as good as the vastly overinflated impression of some sort of national savior that his campaign and his supporters are putting out.

Sorry that the douchebag from Texas is losing out to Huckabee, of all people. Sorry also that you don't seem to get that Americans want leaders who can tell us what we can do and what's good about the other Americans in political life, rather than being ridiculously and obnoxiously negative about every person who doesn't share your particular views.

You're kind of making my point- anything less than absolute praise for the guy is "ridiculously and obnoxiously negative".

robotfolksinger: I lol'ed! KOTOR rules! :)

Churchill2004: It's not so much that Obama is all that bad himself, I'll readily admit he's better than Hillary and McCain, but rather that he isn't nearly as good as the vastly overinflated impression of some sort of national savior that his campaign and his supporters are putting out.

That's the closest thing approaching a compliment that I've seen you make towards Obama thus far. Not bad!

Pretty good hatchet piece there, Bob Owens. But one trip to wikipedia would show some of Barack Obama's legislative acheivements so something tells me Bob either didn't look very hard or he is a moron.

Anyone who looks for perfection in a prospective employee will be disappointed. The realistic option is to hire the best available candidate for the job. And at this point, there are only three who have any realistic chance of being president. The Republican race is over.
That's reality. Make of it what you will.
You can either choose, or opt yourself out of the decision making process by abstaining, or cast a protest vote for someone with no chance.
There is no fourth option.

Um...

Obama's political background is cryptic, and perhaps purposefully so.

and:

Obama's actual voting record has established him as the most radical leftist in the United States senate

Er..


That word, &tc.

Skleenar: Um...

Obama's political background is cryptic, and perhaps purposefully so.

Yeah, it's so cryptic he wrote two books about it. Anyone claiming "all style no substance" should go read The Audacity of Hope right the hell now.

bberg
The Republican Party will have tons to whip out on Obama through their 529s - drug use, living abroad, "lack of experience" - and those are just the things we know about.

I'm less afraid of the GOP using the same old smear tactics this time around, both because I'm not sure that they will become a deliberate part of McCain's campaign (as they were with Bush), and because I'm fairly sure that most people are tired of that kind of campaigning generally. Someone who presents a clear contrast to the mudslinging and distortions of attack politics will be rewarded at the polls: we can see that clearly demonstrated in the turnout already. "Yes we can" is a far better motivator than attempts to demonize such an obviously fundamentally decent human being.

Oh yeah, and since when is living abroad, particularly as a child, something to be attacked for?

cameroncrazy1984: Skleenar: Um...

Obama's political background is cryptic, and perhaps purposefully so.

Yeah, it's so cryptic he wrote two books about it. Anyone claiming "all style no substance" should go read The Audacity of Hope right the hell now.

Silly cameron, those people don't actually know how to read.

bberg: Whatsleft: Hahahaha it descended into essentially just calling him a liberal. That's cute. Get ready for a thrashing.

Not in the least. Don't you remember 2004? "First and third most liberal Senators..." repeated ad nauseum as soon as Kerry picked Edwards for his running mate. And that was just the start. All of their heavy hitters came out later. First they paint the four-letter word "Liberal" on you, then they start the heavy attacks.

This isn't 2004. I think there's a very good chance that that tactic is not going to work this time around, and may even backfire. The country's tired of the direction it's been going in, I don't think the "L" word has the same power. Sure, it's going to fire up a certain crowd... but not a segment that I can see voting for the first black President anyway. I think a lot of people have figured out that "tax & spend" beats "spend & borrow" if you wanna listen to that old tired shiat anyway.

Skleenar: also:

The young senator also voted against repealing the death tax. He dismissed it as a "Paris Hilton tax break" that would give "billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses." Try telling that to the owners of farms, ranches, and small businesses who are forced to sell their legacies because of this tax.


I keep trying, but I can't find any such people.

That's because there aren't any. The exemption to the inheritance tax is huge, and can be easily increased when needed. It also makes some exceptions for family run businesses.
I agree that there is an abstract, ethical argument against inheritance taxes - and I think that those who oppose them should focus on those arguments, and quit pretending that they have any real effect on anyone who actually works for a living.
The argument, by the way, is a good one. The money was already taxed once. When it is handed down to a descendent, it is NOT a business transaction. No goods or services are exchanged for the money. What the government is doing is essentially double-dipping, and in my view, it is unethical. However, that has not convinced the powers that be to eliminate it- and the reason is that the law as currently enacted effects so few people that the only politicians who have any political stake in eliminating it are a few Republicans who are lapdogs of the super-rich.