Looks like the Senate of France at Luxembourg Park Paris to me. Hope Johnny got it cheap.

Dave

Amy, you're just not applying yourself to the task. Try this:

1. Get undergrad and law degrees from two of the top universities.

2. Marry a guy, and get him elected to the US senate.

3. See your salary double in your mission-critical position as vice-president for diversity at a hospital!

4. Talk about how mean America is.

Ah, Obama is just trying to get back at McCain for the Republicans smacking him around on his "Arugula" comment.

Obama is the last person who should be talking about houses or the financing thereof.

Obama bought a house with the help from convicted felon Tony Rezko. Obama just got back from a Hawaiian vacation. Obama and his wife are millionaires with four Ivy League degrees between them. Obama privately educates his two daughters. Obama eats Argula lettuce. Obama says McCain is "out of touch" Please. I'd make a kettle and pot reference her but I don't want to be called a "racist" by the knobs at SadlyPathetic.

Maybe John McCain doesn't know how many houses his wife owns because he spends most nights in hotels or on military bases.

I can't believe the Obama Camp is opening the door for McCain to attack him on the sweet heart deal he got on his expensive home in Chicago...right next door to his buddy, Rezko.

I'm not thrilled with McCain either, Amy. But you had better get used to the thought of him being President. Obama is possibly the worst candidate the Democrats have trotted out since, well, McGovern. There simply are not enough rich, white, guilty, trust fund babies who hate America to get him elected.

Did you hear Obama's idiotic comments drawing comparisons between the US liberation of Iraq and the Russian invasion of democratic Georgia? The press protected him so he could get the nomination. How much longer can they keep it up? The more Obama talks without a telepromter in front of him the more the "aura" of invincibility is washed away.

Obama isn't even close to being ready for prime time. Who do you want looking across the table at Vladimir Putin...John McCain or Barack Obama. I mean, its a joke. McCain is going to crush Obama. Then we can hear fomr the Left about how racist we all are and how McCain stole the election.

4.2 million just in one year and he only owns one house? Unless he's overlooking a condo in Aspen or something (no, I don't know of any! just throwing it out there as an example) because it's not a house, all he's informing me of is he really, really doesn't know how to manage money and that's not a good thing in a prez.

I think I'll quote myself.

1 - Obama is an elitist. If there's anyone that Americans outside of San Fran and NYC hate, it's an elitist.

2 - In 2004, some punk at Newsweek came out and said that the media was good for 15 points for Kerry, and he lost. This time, the media is even more obviously in the bag for Obama, and going in to his convention he's dropping like a rock and will need whatever bounce he can get just to return to par.

3 - Obama's an idiot. The more he is forced to talk without his handlers having pre-written everything and putting on a teleprompter, the more this becomes obvious.

There's nothing short of nominating Hillary that the Democrats can do to give themselves a chance, and her negatives are so high that McCain might win bigger against her than against Obama (not to mention the almost guaranteed riots that failing to anoint the chosen one will cause).

I thought the Republicans stepped in it with McCain. But the Democrats are the ones who really stepped in the dog doo this time around.

Here's the thing: if you're going to attack your opponent for being "elitist", you'd better damn well know how many homes you own.

And no, I'm no great fan of Obama either. I think the political process has again left us choosing between the lesser of evils. And our political process has become so money-driven, that only those who are pretty damn well off ever get to the national stage. I wish they'd all quit trying to pretend they're Regular Joes.

Also, just in case anyone hadn't gotten the whole story yet, the "price of arugula" discussion happened in Iowa when Obama was meeting with...wait for it....Arugula growers! Ba-bump! I'm here all week, please be sure to tip your waitress!

This is the year of voting "none of the above" for me. Both candidates scare the hell out of me for various reasons.

Obama has no business talking about McCain's being out of touch. What about his half-brother who lives in a shack in Nairobi on less than a dollar a month? I'd try to link it but it might not make it. Just google keywords "Obama Nairobi brother" and see what pops up.

For a laugh though, go to JibJab's website and watch the "Time for Some Campaignin'" video.

"I can't believe the Obama Camp is opening the door for McCain to attack him on the sweet heart deal he got on his expensive home in Chicago...right next door to his buddy, Rezko."

Oh please, you really think that the rethuglicans wouldn't have mentioned Rezko if the Obama camp hadn't roast McSenile for now knowing how many homes he owns?

We do want our leaders to be successful, don't we? Why is it a problem if someone who's supposed to lead the country owns a bunch of houses? Better him than the guy who lives in a mobile home, grumbling about "rich assholes" and how he got screwed over by the world, right? I'd assume that both candidates have someone looking after their finances. The husband and I are considering hiring someone to do our household bookkeeping, and we're by no means rich.

JoJo - your BDS is showing.

McCain's camp already hit on the Rezko bit in their response to Obama's stupid "he doesn't know how many houses he owns".

Deja - Having a bunch of houses doesn't make you an elitist. Believing you're superior to everyone else does. Obama's made it perfectly clear how he feels about those of us in the "regular lettuce" crowd.

Obama's an elitist. McCain isn't. Neither is a "regular Joe".

Look, I think we are veering away from the important thing here, which is that Amy got a new orange dress. We need to press her for pictures!

The "how many houses" question was a setup for McCain. There was no right answer. He actually doesn't own any. The houses all belong to various trusts. Which ones are controlled by Cindy, or a third party? Dunno. But any answer he gave would have been attacked.

Personally, I think the term "elitist" has become meaningless. There's intellectual elistism, anti-intellectual elitism, financial elitism, class elitism, fitness elitism blah blah blah.

And isn't it somehow elitist to assume that people in The Heartland™ don't eat them fancy lettuces or drink that furrin green tea? Isn't it elitist to assume that people who live in one place or another comprise a monolithic set of values? It's out of touch, that's for sure.

Deja -

My point exactly. Obama's little "cling to religion and guns" thing while he was talking to a bunch of fat cats in San Fran is what I'm on about.

The man clearly believes that there are two Americas, and he's in the one that should be telling the other one what to do, but they're just too stupid to vote for him, and that's a problem.

talking to a bunch of fat cats in San Fran

Mirror, mirror.

Anyway, I'm sick of being told I'm not a "real American" because I live on the west coast and hold some liberal values. (I'm also a big believer in personal responsibility, just like my family in the midwest.) The narrative in this country right now seems to be that "real Americans" are God-fearin, simple folk, which is propagated by the right (to court Evangelicals) as much as the left. The narrative goes that these people are more upstanding and moral than the rest of us. I'm quite tired of religious elitism, to tell you the truth!

I'm an elitist. If you don't think, I'll look down on you.

Come on, Deja - do you think for one second that Barry and his upper crust pals at that shindig in SF would deign to give you or I the time of day?

The "real Americans" are the ones that pull themselves out of bed every day and go to work to keep this country running.

I've got no patience for the idiots like Candy Spelling who cry hardship because they're moving from their 56000 sf mansion to a 16000 sf condo.

And if you believe in personal responsibility, you aren't a real liberal :)

JoJo:

"I can't believe the Obama Camp is opening the door for McCain to attack him on the sweet heart deal he got on his expensive home in Chicago...right next door to his buddy, Rezko."

"Oh please, you really think that the rethuglicans wouldn't have mentioned Rezko if the Obama camp hadn't roast McSenile for now knowing how many homes he owns?"

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it was politically stupid of Obama to start talking real estate.

As to the "rethuglicans" talking about it - it doesn't matter - as the MSM won't cover it. If McCain bought a house with Rezko's help it would be BIG news in the MSM. If McCain had associated with racists like Wright for 20 years it would be big news. If McCain had close ties to someone like Bill Ayers it would be big news. The MSM has seen to it that Obama's background is kept under wraps. It sealed the nomination for him. It will also cost him the election when people realize that he doesn't sound that smart when people aren't telling him what to say.

By the way, your "rethuglican" comment further proves Amy's point that Liberals aren't very nice when someone questions their doctrine. Conservatives think liberals are naive and/or misinformed. Liberals think conservatives are EVIL. That's why you call us "Rethuglicans", right JoJo? How tolerant of you.

Sounds like you have a budding case of "buyer's remorse" to go along with your BDS....

Sorry can someone tell me what "BDS" stands for? The Acronym dictionary isn't helping me.

I'm an elitist. If you don't think, I'll look down on you.

We need more of that kind of elitism.

Moreta,

BDS stands for "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

BDS is responsible for causing otherwise seemingly intelligent and sane people to wish for a US military defeat in Iraq. It also causes them to shuffle around muttering "Bush lied people died"!! and "McChimpyHitlerHalliburton"!!!

If you encounter a BDS sufferer just walk away. If you engage this curiousity and disagree with any of its theology - you will be labelled a "rethuglican" and compelled to wear the "Scarlet R".

Huffing and puffing is, unfortunately, what wins elections... or so the people who run them perceive, and I expect they're about right.

It's not about substance. Maybe it was, back in the days before electronic communications, but I doubt it. It's all about which candidate most people trust more, or, in some elections, which one the other guys can make you trust least. This is one of those elections. Obama is a scary Presidential prospect to many simply because he's black, his first name seems odd, and his middle name is Hussein... that, and he's clearly, irrefutably both intelligent and articulate, which many, many American voters find threatening.

McCain, on the other hand... well, his own base started out hating him and still isn't entirely sure of him... most conservatives initially reacted to McCain's winning the Republican nomination with the same kind of appalled horror that most liberal/progressives would feel about Joe Lieberman winning the Dem candidacy. McCain has done his best to bring them into the boat with him, but he's had to pull so many total 180s on his loudly stated policy positions to do so that it's very difficult to really trust him to any great degree. Beyond that, conservatives respect strength; McCain gives off the distinct whiff of a suck up who will do absolutely anything to get elected. Desperation is never attractive.

So large blocks of the electorate start out mistrusting Obama because he's smarter, better spoken, and/or darker skinned than they are, while similar percentages of the populace mistrust McCain because, first, he's 'the most liberal Republican in the Senate' and second, he's obviously a shameless whore and opportunist. Even more than any other Presidential election, this will not be settled by issues of substance. It will come down to, which campaign can find the key phrases to stick the most unease, disgust, and distrust to the other candidate with?

McCain has tried 'elitist' and 'celebrity', and seemed to be getting some traction with them, so Obama is, probably very wisely, hitting him back with the same thing. It may not seem like a big deal to you that McCain own so many luxury mansions that he can't keep track of them, but your rejection of the 'issue' is an intellectual response. For many others, this will resonate on a deep emotional level. It makes McCain seem simultaneously spoiled, out of touch, privileged, old, and confused.

If Obama is going to win, he needs to knock a great deal of the shine off McCain, and get the media -- McCain's biggest supporters to date -- moved to a point where they start to see irresistible opportunities for career advancement in knocking McCain down a peg or two. With the Edwards affair scandal still smoking on many front burners, McCain can't start seeming too vulnerable, because the media has to date largely given him a free pass on how shabbily he treated his first wife and how widespread his infidelities have most likely been during his current marriage. If reporters start to get the idea that all that muck is fair game for raking, McCain is dead in the water... and he knows it.

None of that has anything much to do with how either man will perform as President of the United States, but by and large, voters don't really care about real substantive issues. They just want dirt, and they love to see the high and mighty brought low. The Republicans have already provided the entire world with an unimpeachable excuse to be deeply interested in a President's sexual peccadilloes -- "it reflects on his CHARACTER!!!!" -- and McCain simply dasn't let the debate go in that direction.

How many luxury mansions the man owns may seem like a far cry from those murkier regions, but believe me, it's the first step down that road. Should the press decide that McCain really isn't the coolest kid in the cafeteria, the distance from there to 'how many blonde lobbyists have danced on the head of Johnny Mac's pin' is miniscule.

So, yes, they'll both continue to huff and puff. Mondale tried to talk about substance, and so did Dukakkis, and so did Gore. Nobody on either side of the aisle this time around is stupid enough to ignore all THAT history.

"McCain, on the other hand... well, his own base started out hating him and still isn't entirely sure of him... "

Actually, they still hate him, it's just that they are afraid of what will happen if they let Obama get elected.

Tom, I think Rezko isn't big news because the people who are going to decide who to vote for based on what they perceive as "character" are not likely to care about the details of real estate deals. Few people are willing to pay much attention to *any* real estate deals, even those they are personally involved in, which is pretty unfortunate actually.

Besides, McCain has been involved in real estate deals of dodgy appearance: Donald Diamond's purchase of land that had belonged to Fort Ord, for example. These deals were much, much larger and more profitable, and received some attention, but again, it's not something most people respond emotionally to.

Ummmmm...if your base hates you, how can they be your "base".

Bush Derangement Syndrome is an insulting term used by rightwingers towards anyone who has an accurate opinion of Bush's character, intelligence, competence and concern for ordinary Americans.

I'll be tolerant of rightwingers the day you stop using terms like 'libs', 'Rats' for Democrats, when the smear campaign against Obama is called off, when Ann Coulter is denounced by you people for calling for liberals to be murdered, etc. Sounds like certain people like to dish it out but don't like to take it.

Doc - if you really believe that the media has favored McCain, please remember to donate your organs. Thank you.

Even that bastion of convervatism the Washington Post acknowledges its pro-Obama bias. Step out of the echo chamber for a minute, dude. There's a whole, big wide world out there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080102874_pf.html

Bush Derangement Syndrome is an insulting term used by rightwingers towards anyone who has an accurate opinion of Bush's character, intelligence, competence and concern for ordinary Americans.

No, BDS is reserved for the people who claim that Bush stole the election in 2000, or that he caused 9/11, or that he made the world hate us, or that he lied us into war in Iraq.

In other words, BDS is caused by believing the lies of the leftists because its more comfortable than believing the truth.

when the smear campaign against Obama is called off

What "smear campaign"? The man has literally nothing to recommend him for ANY office, much less President. Or are you one of those leftists who believes that telling the truth about a liberal is a smear?

Seriously - give me one good reason to vote for Obama other than "He's not George Bush". Because Ron Paul's not Bush, but that doesn't mean I want him running the country either.

Doc Jensen

So large blocks of the electorate start out mistrusting Obama because he's smarter, better spoken, and/or darker skinned than they are,

Well, one out of three ain't bad.

Doc Jensen

So, yes, they'll both continue to huff and puff. Mondale tried to talk about substance, and so did Dukakkis, and so did Gore. Nobody on either side of the aisle this time around is stupid enough to ignore all THAT history.

Substance? Mondale? He lost because he said "See all those people? We're gonna tax the shit outta them". Gore? What did he talk about that was substantive? The only thing he had was the lie of anthropogenic global warming. Kerry? "I'm not George Bush, and I served in Vietnam too".

Yeah, real substantive.

JoJo

You are incoherent. You should talk to someone. There are people who can help you.

And since I can tell that someone's just waiting to pull a gotcha on that last post of mine:

People mistrust Obama not because he's darker than they are, but because he's NOT smarter or better spoken.

The man is an imbecile, and it's becoming more and more obvious every time he talks without a prompter.

If you thought George Bush was stupid, wait till you see THIS guy without a net. You'll find you wish he was as smart as Bush.

Obama's all charisma, no intelligence. The first debate will show that so clearly that not even the fawning media will be able to protect him.

As for that pro-McCain bias? Tell it to the NYT who wouldn't run a fully sourced story on John Edwards' love child, but took an anonymous story about an affair that McCain never had and ran with it. Talk about egg on the face.

Brian

Stop casting pearls before swine. Its useless. Its like a mental illness. There is nothing we can do.

"Also, just in case anyone hadn't gotten the whole story yet, the "price of arugula" discussion happened in Iowa when Obama was meeting with...wait for it....Arugula growers!" ~deja pseu

Actually, there wasn't arugula on the farm he was at. It was corn and soybeans. From an article I read here: (if you will permit my link) http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/obamas-down-on-the-farm/

"where he stood between a tasseling corn field and a soybean field with leaves slowly rippling in the breeze."

As for people in the Heartland eating arugula, I would say it depends on where a person lives. I live in Nebraska, and it can't be found in my town. We're lucky to find any decent produce at all, unless it's from the farmer's market. Obama's mistake was one of ignorance. (Before you scream, I'm not saying he is an ignorant man, just that he wasn't educated on the area of the country he was speaking in, and what they have available to them.)

"The state of Iowa, for all of its vast food production, does not have a Whole Foods, a leading natural and organic foods market. The closest? Omaha, Minneapolis or Kansas City."

I don't know anybody who would like to drive that far to get fancy lettuce. Especially with gas prices as high as they are now.

I know, Tom. I keep hoping I can save a few of them from The Great Exploding Head Panic of 2008.

It's gonna get messier than the front row at a Gallagher show.

We are not a socialist state, we are not supposed to be a democracy.. we are a REPUBLIC.
I will write in Ron Paul.
the others will only make it worse.

You do that, troll. Vote for "The Only Man Who Can Save America"

Because just like his buddy Pat Buchanan, he's gonna do it by sealing the borders and cutting us off from the world entirely.

Because that worked so well in 1932.

I am no troll, and we should watch our borders. He is not an isolationist. Have you even done any research??? Is name calling all you can do?

"It's gonna get messier than the front row at a Gallagher show." ~brian

Funny, but scarily true. I don't really like either candidate, so I'll be doing the lesser-of-two-evils thing when I vote. Too bad Cindy isn't running, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat!

"He is not an isolationist. Have you even done any research???" ~An American

He wants to pull us out of NATO and the UN, and remove military bases and troops from foreign soil, and you DON'T think he's an isolationist? What would YOUR definition of isoationist be, then?

Amy,

As an outsider, I'm even further removed as a fan of either candidate. But it amazes me how deeply mesmerized the Obama supporters are. There's nothing he can say or do that they will take fault with.

Take a friend of mine, Patty, who lives on your East Coast. She's a smart woman, a really smart woman. But she buys into every bit of rhetoric that Obama spews out. Just this morning she was telling me about McCain and his houses.

If one was looking at this sudden attack from Obama with a more cynical political lens then I suspect one might conclude that it was a way for him to get the media off of the strange issue of his apparent lack of support for helping babies that are born alive after an abortion. And that too is a non-issue for most Americans.

Why is is that election after election is fought on real non-issues and the important stuff never gets honestly discussed? No wonder most all politicians are viewed with such disdain and low approval ratings.

AA - what would you call someone who wants to cancel all trade agreements, disband NAFTA, and withdraw all our troops from all military bases worldwide?

Because I'm not thinking that it entails any kind of involvement with the world.

I mean, you're free to embrace that kind of thing if you really want to, but it shows a certain lack of critical thinking skills, and certainly a betrayal of capitalist dogma.

I typically reserve name-calling for when I'm dealing with retards, and I suspect I'm dealing with one right now.

Robert - it's because most of the substantive issues are out of the reach of most Americans.

For most Americans, economics begins and ends with their paycheck.

Foreign Policy is something that is largely irrelevant to the majority of Americans - and, I'd argue pretty much everyone except for wonks.

Social policy comes down to education, welfare, and abortion. Sometimes they throw in a token gay issue. Race is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody's allowed to talk about or debate.

So we end up with people supporting Ron Paul and his childish view of how to conduct foreign policy (i.e. not at all).

Or we get lunatics like Ralph Nader who view all of capitalism as inherently corrupt, and all corporations as out to make a profit, especially if they can hurt or kill their customers.

Which has the ultimate effect of making George Bush look reasonable by way of comparison.

>/"BDS is responsible for causing otherwise seemingly intelligent and sane people to wish for a US military defeat in Iraq. It also causes them to shuffle around muttering "Bush lied people died"!!and "McChimpyHitlerHalliburton"!!!"

That's funny. I think we all know someone afflicted with that - someone whose crazy e-mails you have to block.

Brian, since I've been too lazy, and trust your opinion, can you give a quick recap of Obama's economic plan (or lack therof) compared to McCain's?

But I'm mostly concerned about the shortage of Arugula in the midwest! How can that be?

basically, if you can pin him down long enough, Barack's plan is to tax the living fuck out of everyone, cancel the war, and use the money to buy votes.

If you can pin McCain down, his plan is to either cut taxes or not, retain the Bush tax cuts or not, decrease spending or not.

In other words, neither has really nailed it down yet. But if we go by past actions, McCain's always been for reducing spending, especially pork. And Barack's been for more government spending, and has long advocated not only reversing the Bush tax cuts, but increasing taxes beyond that on the so-called "rich".

Since we've got McCain's 20 years in the senate versus Obama's 146 days, I think McCain's got a more established track record.

lol. I love you, Brian....I know, I know, it's overrated. ;-)

Brian,
Tell me even you have to smile at the spin on this Fox headline today (someone just put a screen shot at Metafilter).

Fox News: “Is Obama Bashing ‘American Dream’ By Bashing McCain’s 7 Homes?”

I tell people here in Mexico that a US president serves two purposes.

1. to motivate and energize the people. Frankly, Obama has that ability, IMO.

2. To set goals and policies. Obama scares me on this one. Enough of socialism, a mode that has failed everywhere it has been tried, if you wait a while.

Anyone who thinks his race/color are issues as such is beneath contempt of all educated people.
###
I may be wrong on this. But some of you keep talking about McCain owning all these houses. While you slept, the laws were changed, and women are now allowed to own property in their own name. I have just read a bunch of news articles, and all agreed those houses ALL BELONG TO HIS WIFE. Except for normal marital communications, those houses are simply not his business..

###
Hey, I am in favor of more Amy pictures. I am the clown who said her last photo reminded me of Audrey Hepburn.

I also asked if she sold pin-ups. Then, I said I was joking. But, the only reason it was a joke was because it is tacky to ask a woman of intelligence for a pin-up as if her body or looks are all that is important, when there are so many mindless bimbos with great looks and no brains.

Brian, Tell me even you have to smile at the spin on this Fox headline today (someone just put a screen shot at Metafilter).

Fox News: “Is Obama Bashing ‘American Dream’ By Bashing McCain’s 7 Homes?”

I wouldn't put too much stock in that. And I wouldn't have seen it. I stopped paying attention to Fox when they decided on the "All dead/missing blonde girl all the time" format.

Semi-right: Fox, WaTimes, NYPost
Left: CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, NYT, LAT, Boston Glob, WaPo.

I think there's adequate evidence of media imbalance. I mean, PMSNBC's lead schumck Matthews "gets a tingle up [his] leg" when he thinks about Obama. Olberdouche (on the same network) can't say enough bad things about anyone to the right of Joseph Stalin.

But there's no left-wing bias in the media.

>>But there's no left-wing bias in the media.

Brian,
I'd be daft to deny it. C'mon, the Fox headline was funny is all...

Matthews "gets a tingle up [his] leg"

Oh please. Matthews proactically got a woody from Bush's "package" the flight suit, and has drooled over many Republican "manly men" types, including Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The guy had some serious Daddy issues.

Let me pose this question to those disguising their deviating from McCain's gaffes with ridiculing Obama over dumb shit: did any of you idiots pay attention to the Republican primary?

Do you recall McCain defending the so-called strength of the economy back then? Can you recall half the shit he said he was for without the help of an Internet article? Not that any of you fools actually could prove to me otherwise, but I don't think you can.

I'm going to assume that a few of you bozos are of the pseudo-GOP persuasion, which means you're probably atheist heathens that got mad at your parents one day and took it out on various sects of the GOP voting block in the pathetic effort to prove your independence.

I cannot even address half the debunked shit you nitwits are attempting to pass off as character jabs at Obama. Is this the effort you put into Obama merely mocking McCain on his own elitism. Are you all kidding with this shit? What the fuck are you all - retarded?

Look, before you offer yourselves up to be lambasted, at least explain your motivations for relying on gibberish that didn't help Clinton in the Dem primary, dorks. Then when you fail to do this, await the thrashing, ok, bitches.

Toodles.

Brian et al, you may enjoy reading this that I've just posted, partially because of this thread, partly because of my discussion with my Democrat friends, and partially just because I'm fed up with ignorant people living within the protection of the American military and its reach, espousing holier than thou opinions.

For example, today I heard one person say, "Democracy Isn't For Everyone". Isn't that a convenient thing to say while you're sipping your Mocha Latte at Starbucks.

Deja - Perhaps it was funny, but I view it more as pathetic.

Lexaburn - What term would you use for an economy that's growing faster than Germany's, which was recently described as "sizzling"? The economy in the United States is doing fine, the media's and Democrat's efforts to talk it down notwithstanding.

Obama is the ultimate "affirmative action" hire. He has no qualifications other than he's black. He has no experience other than he's black. He has, quite frankly, nothing to recommend him for any position whatsoever. But he's black.

If I'm going to vote for a man, I'd like one that has his own mind, and doesn't have to pull what he thinks from a teleprompter.

I'm not going to vote for a guy just because he's black. And that's all Obama has to offer.

The only thing the Democrat primary taught us is the relative pecking order of "minorities" in the Democratic party. Women were told "get to the back of the bus, ladies!"

If you've got a thrashing that doesn't include posting 65 kB of garbage 72 times, let's have it. Otherwise, I'll assume you're a man of no substance and little wit who's voting for Obama for no reason other than the color of his skin.

Why do you folks imagine people arguing with you over stupid shit?

Who the fuck declares "Democracy isn't for everyone!" while sipping a latte and is taken seriously? Who in their right mind takes them seriously and complains about it on dorky weblogs?

I suppose you were having an imaginary argument with some random lib about Iraq or some other foreign place. Within the delusion, you found yourself rubbing your temple in frustration at your antagonist's ignorance of the fact that our brave men and women protect the rights of all the loudmouths you lambast within your fantasies.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

Are you joking? Is this site secretly a foreign-based satire of actual American blogs?

Are you all this dense?

"The only thing the Democrat primary taught us is the relative pecking order of "minorities" in the Democratic party. Women were told "get to the back of the bus, ladies!"

I.E. Bros before Hos

Lexaburn, you are a troll or a bot. No human could be that dense without collapsing in on themselves.

If you thought George Bush was stupid, wait till you see THIS guy without a net. You'll find you wish he was as smart as Bush.

Is Obama really that bad? Admittedly, I am not following politics, so I've not personally witnessed Obabma speaking w/o prompts.

Are there are YouTube videos or others that show prove he's less competent than W at speaking off the cuff?

If you thought George Bush was stupid, wait till you see THIS guy without a net. You'll find you wish he was as smart as Bush.

Brian, I'm interested, too, in seeing the evidence.

As for the person up there -- Tom -- who said this: "Stop casting pearls before swine. Its useless. Its like a mental illness. There is nothing we can do."

Oh, please. Don't be such a drama queen. This isn't that kind of site. I'd like to know the facts about both candidates, as I'm sure many would. See Tony, for example, just above.

Amy - Tom's referring to my tendency to respond to trolls.

And as far as Obama goes, have you listened to him speak when he doesn't have the teleprompter? It's actually painful. He can't string together a coherent sentence.

Why do you think he said "no" to the unscripted, unprepared town hall-style debates with McCain? The instant he has to speak on his own without his handlers, he's done.

He's a walking gaffe machine. 57 states? Come on. You can see it in his eyes, too. Like there's nothing behind them.

And choosing Biden? That alone makes me question his suitability to hold office. I understand he had to pick someone even less impressive than he, but damn!

I'm starting to think that this is a poison pill. Biden pulled himself out of the running for the presidency way back when after the plagiarism thing hit. He's a loser. Americans don't like losers. Picking Biden gives the superdelegates wiggle room to go Hillary now.

I doubt it's a head fake, because the secret service wouldn't have anything to do with it if it was.

I think Biden is an odd choice too, but I guess it's because of his foreign policy experience.

I'd love to vote for Obama. I really would. He has a lot more charm than McCain, and I think it would help our global image. But I'm too fiscally conservative. I just can't support the tax and spend policies.

Then again, Bush has just spent and spent, so he hasn't been conservative, and ending the war would ease that spending and maybe begin lowering the deficit. Or am I dreaming?

ls -

Our global image is irrelevant.

And I've said time and again that Bush is no conservative. McCain, for all his maverickness is more conservative than Bush, and HE'S no conservative either.

"Ending" the war prematurely (I presume you mean Iraq, btw) would come back to bite us in the ass. We failed to deal the finishing blow to the Soviets when the wall fell, and look at what's happening now. We let Iraq fall to tribalism, and we WILL pay for it in the future. We're already seeing the costs of abandoning Afghanistan to NATO.

Here is an example of O'Bama without a teleprompter in front of him.

Please note how quiet the crowd is when he asks them to calm down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

Here's one from today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElChQ6g2Io

Talk about a Freudian slip.

Yikes.

"Then again, Bush has just spent and spent,..."

Grrrr!

Please go read your Constitution. Congress, not the President, controls Federal spending. The budget must come from the House of Representatives.

If you don't know that, how would you claim to be a responsible voter?

You have been fooled. Get smart!

Yeah, Bush had nothing to do with getting us into a very expensive war - searching for WMDs that it increasingly seems he knew weren't there.

And, I forgot, presidents don't have any influence over congress. They never exert political pressure or have veto power over legislation. Thanks for the civics lesson. My bad.

Here, you guys want a civics lesson?

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices: 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible. They and they alone, have the power. They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
o_O

ls:

Yeah, Bush had nothing to do with getting us into a very expensive war - searching for WMDs that it increasingly seems he knew weren't there.

And, I forgot, presidents don't have any influence over congress. They never exert political pressure or have veto power over legislation. Thanks for the civics lesson. My bad.

That first statement is patently false. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone outside of Saddam's advisors knew that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of invasion. It is very likely that any chemical or biological weapons they had wound up in Syria in the 14 months we gave them between announcing our intent and actually invading.

And presidents have less influence over Congress than you might think. They can override a veto, or they can insert the shit they want into a "must-pass" bill and force a showdown with the president that he (if he's a Republican) will always lose. Clinton already set the precedent - whenever there is a government shutdown, no matter where it happens, it is the fault of the Republicans.

So, the President can have the government shut down (and it might come to that this fall) by Congress either refusing to pass a budget, or by inserting things that the President explicitly does not want into all budgets daring him to veto them.

The balance of powers is no longer present. The courts gave themselves the power to legislate from the bench with Marbury, and the media has given the Congress the ability to force the President's hand.

And everyone screams about the unaccountable "imperial executive". The man has no power whatsoever unless Congress wants him to have it.

lovelysoul, do you have your copy of the Constitution ready? Being indignant doesn't change the facts.

By the way - whoever you've been listening to about Iraqi WMDs has fooled you, too.

Do you not remember that Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities?

Well, I voted for this president, and at first, I vehemently supported the war in Iraq, while all my liberal friends argued that it would be an endless "quagmire". It seems to me they were right on that count - or at least more right than me. I don't see how we're ever going stabilize that region. They've had tribal warfare there for so long. It's not like Russia. They don't function from any of the same basic values.

There's a new book out (by Ron Suskind) claiming the Bush administration forged a letter from a top Iraqi intelligence official to Saddam Hussein claiming 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta trained in Iraq, which provided the much-needed link to al-Quaida. They couldn't get this, or any other official, to provide that link, so they made it up.

And we know they used false documents charging Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium ore from Niger as a basis for the war.

Maybe there were WMDs, but it just seems to me now that he was hungry to go to war in Iraq at all costs. And he certainly influenced congress to do so. Of course, it was partly the whole climate after 9/11 too.

I agree that presidents don't have a lot of power, but they do work their croonies and pull in political favors, especially when their party is the majority. Yet, I also agree with Brian that the balance of power is no longer there.

So where are the chemical and biological weapons now? Iran? Is that where you think we're going next?

I think you'll find that Suskind book pulled soon, and for the same reason that the Michael Bellisles book on guns was pulled -- because it is substantively false.

The "false documents" from Niger didn't show up until after the decision to go to war had been made and the evidence presented to the UN. Joe Wilson lied to the CIA, and then lied again in a NYT op-ed. If you look at the timeline, this becomes clear. Wilson was a pawn in the CIA's continuing war with the Office of the President. What, you thought that we hit the Chinese embassy in Sarajevo because of an outdated CIA map? Hells no. The CIA deliberately fed wrong info to the military to embarrass Clinton. The CIA has been at war with the Executive for four decades.

Iraq was, throughout the 1990s and beyond, a substantial financier of terrorism throughout the world. All those who said that Sunni Al-Qaeda would never work with secular Iraq were full of shit. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" as a doctrine is alive and well in the middle east. I'll agree that the proper target of our ire after 9/11 should have been Saudi Arabia and Iran - but logistically those were impossible. Iran will remain out of reach until they manage an atomic detonation.

I think that whatever remained of the bio and chem weapons that Saddam had are in Syria. I suspect that they've lost most of their potency from being in storage so long, but they exist, and they were ferried out of the country.