Ya -Ya. I get the point. Nobody likes me. Everybody hates me. What did I do to piss everybody off.

The instant Gingrich took Hillary's side in the health-care debate, he stopped being a conservative.

Gingrich is dead to me. I have no Newt.

And the reason everyone is attacking Paulson is because he lost the battle - the media already chose the narrative that this was all the fault of Wall Street, when it's really the fault of K Street.

The Palin pick was useful in one regard - it showed the left for the sexist bastards that they are. McCain might have gotten less mileage out of one of the Republican freshmen in the House, but he would have gotten more of an attack conservative.

Oh, and one more thing - has anyone considered that Paulson had a REASON to not want Congressional oversight?

It couldn't possibly be on account of Congress STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING PROBLEM, could it?

Foxes, hen houses...

Brian, you are so right about Congress. That Parliament of Whores gets a free pass by the press and the public, every time.

Galling.

You may have seen this video.

It records of Congressional Republicans attempting to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while congressional Democrats oppose reform.

You'll see it all. Black Democrats playing the race card, any tactic to prevent reform.

I meant to write, "It records of Congressional Republicans attempting to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while congressional Democrats oppose reform."

I'm extremely disturbed by the choice of the extremely unqualified right-wing pinup girl Palin for Vice-President.

Ah yes, a page out of the Democratic Party playbook: If you repeat "unqualified" often enough, perhaps people will start to believe you. Perhaps they'll stop paying attention to the fact that Palin's the only candidate in this election with any executive experience at any level. Perhaps they'll stop paying attention to the fact that she has more executive experience than all the other candidates combined. Perhaps they'll forget that the has as much or more executive experience than did Presidential candidates Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and John Kennedy. Perhaps they'll forget she has as much or more executive experience than past Vice Presidential candidates Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Dan Quayle, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Albert Gore. Perhaps they'll ignore the fact that she has more executive experience than Joe Biden (and, unlike Biden, she doesn't think she's Neil Kinnock).

Remember, she's running for Vice President. She'll have some time to adjust and gain experience (unless McCain pulls a William Henry Harrison). Obama's running for President and no one seems to object to his complete lack of any relevant experience.

And her opponent, Joe Biden, has sat on the sidelines (in the Senate, not once in the command seat) for all of his professional life and no one seems to be questioning his qualifications to be Vice President. All of his supposed great wealth of experience was gained by watching, not by doing. At least Palin has some experience actually doing.

While I don't agree with Palin on many issues (including abortion) and struggle with some of her viewpoints on things, based on the resumes of past (and present) candidates, she's more than qualified to run for Vice President and, if elected, to hold the office.

Amy,

I'm still puzzled by the "inexperienced" charge leveled by detractors of Gov. Palin. She has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. In fact, by any objective standard, SHE is more qualified to be PRESIDENT than Obama. If you were really worried about inexperience, you would be much more worried about Obama than you are about Palin.

Palin has much more experience than John Edwards, Amy. Were you bleating about Edwards' lack of experience in 2004? I didn't think so....

As Palin is a fiscal conservative like you are, I'm betting your real concern about her isn't her "inexperience" but that she believes abortion is immoral.

Amy, you are generally very intellectually honest. However, you aren't with regard to Palin. Why don't you spare us the bullshit about you having reservations about Gov. Palin because of her "inexperience" and just admit that she offends you as a socially "liberal" person?

Amy, I read your last post after I posted. If you are concerned about foreign policy then I guess you are voting for McCain/Palin.

Both Obama and Biden announced The Surge was a failure before it even started. Then they both tried to de-fund the troops and legislate defeat in Iraq. Biden is particularily loathsome. He voted for the war, voted to de-fund it - when he thought it would bring some short term partisan advantage - and promoted a plan that would call from immediate withdrawal of our forces and the carving up of Iraq along ethnic lines. Yeah, that worked real well in Yugoslavia.

Obama has absolutely no foreign policy experience. NONE. Biden has experience as a Senator. However, he has been dead wrong on Iraq. He was also dead wrong when he opposed Reagan's arms race that ended the Cold War. Had we followed Obama and Biden's "plan" for Iraq we would have handed Al Queda a victory, destabilized the Middle East and allowed Iran to fill the vacuum caused by our withdrawal. In short, it would have been catastrophic.
Both Obama and Biden have showed - and continue to show, incredibly poor judgment regarding foreign policy.

Who promoted The Surge before it was even called by that name? John McCain. From a foreign policy standpoint, John McCain is the most experienced presidential candidate in my lifetime. He has also shown tremendous judgment when dealing with foreign policy issues. Biden, who is allegedly on the Dem ticket for his foreign policy experience, has shown terrible judgment throughout his career.

Amy, I agree with you on being a bit disillusioned by the candidate choices in this election.

I think McCain's an honorable man with good intentions. I think Obama is a captivating public speaker. I think Biden's a perennial candidate (and a twit). I think Palin needs two more years of seasoning as governor (same with Jindal).

The excitement level might change in four years. Obama did his party no favor in selecting Biden. In four years the GOP is going to have a pretty impressive list of potential candidates: Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, Romney, and Sanford. The Dems will have Hillary.

I forgot to include Edwards in my list of VP candidates with less experience than Palin. Thanks, Tom.

Newsmax (a conservative site) has a viewpoint on the editing done to the CBS-Palin interviews:

http://www.newsmax.com/hirsen/cbs_distorts_palin/2008/09/29/135441.html

Amy said...

"I would just love to have a candidate running for president that I actually feel good about voting for."

Forget about it, Amy. Any thinking person is simply voting for who they find to be the least offensive.

Remember, I'm not a Democrat. I think a vice-presidential candidate should have much more experience in and knowledge of foreign relations than she does.

How about a presidential candidate? Does Obama have enough experience? Do his fewer-than-four years in the Senate equate to enough experience?

You characterize Palin as "the extremely unqualified right-wing pinup girl." But you add no such qualifiers to Obama's name.

He's just as inexperienced. Yet, you don't refer to Obama as the "extremely unqualified left-wing pinup boy."

That appears to indicate a special animus on your part toward her that is not explained simply by her "inexperience."

B-b-but... inexperienced!

Since this thread has gone all McCain/Obama again, I thought I'd share my experiences. I put a McCain bumper sticker on my minvan on friday. In 3 days, I have walked up to my van 3 times to see foul, immature, and illiterate anti-McCain slogans written on my car (apparently it's dusty, and I should wash it to make life harder on these fools). This is exactly the level of discourse I have come to expect, based on all my experiences with them, from all Obama supporters. They're like a cult. No thought, no reasoning there, just cult-like slavish devotion. If for no other reason on earth, that alone would keep me from ever voting for him. You are the company you keep and the company that keeps you.

Amy's problem is that she is a Christian and nothing else. You do not have far to look back on this blog to see Amy's anti-religion rants. Nevermind that Christians built this country and wrote the Constitution, they are to be feared almost as must as Muslim Terrorists according to some.

Momof3 -

I learned my "bumper sticker" lesson, too. About 5 years ago I had the temerity to put a "Condi 2008" sticker on my truck.

I got about 6 nice sized dings in the passenger side door over the next week or so. That's what I get for living in a college town, I guess.

A large percentage of Obama's supporters are of the vile and nasty sort. The kind of people who just don't simply disagree with the political opinions of others, they think people who disagree with them are EVIL.....

You see this all the time. For instance, George Clooney said that Charlton Heston deserved Alzheimer's because he was a former president of the NRA. Liberals have de-humanized their political opponents, so anything goes. Just like Europeans called Native Americans savages, Hitler believed Jews were sub human and abortion advocates call it "just a glob of cells".

You cannot do unspeakably barbaric things to other human beings. The solution to the problem is not to re-evaluate your positions or how you view your opponent - it is to de-humanize them.

This is a time tested tactic. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss...

The cult of Obama. Coming to a neighborhood near you.

And as I watch the stock ticker and see that the house defeated the bill, I think of a dozen or more movies where the lead antagonist was told "just keep your fucking mouth shut for FIVE minutes", but alas the character could not shut up. That's Nancy Pelosi. She just couldn't keep her big fat mouth shut. Had to blame the Bush admin and the republicans.

That makes alot of since. Blame the people who tried to STOP the bullshit at Fannie Mae. My head is spinning, please somebody slap me....

Ya know Tom I am so sick of hearing how Reagan won the cold war. He didnt walk on water and he wasnt god, the wall didnt fall just because Reagan spoke.

The fact is the russians lost the cold war, and there is a masiive difference between us winning thru planning and manuvering and us winning becuse corrupt russain officals ran their country into the ground. They had more weapons, a better first strike evac plan, and plans to move weapons between lanch sites.

I am so sick of hearing how Reagan beat the red threat simply because he was sitting in DC when the house that graft and moronic money managment built fell down.

Quite frankly if the commies were as evil as everyone wanted them to be they would have fired a few nukes before the lost control

Tom -

I'm still puzzled by the "inexperienced" charge leveled by detractors of Gov. Palin.

Why exactly? Are you honestly going to argue that she has anything that even approaches experience in national politics, foreign relations or anything else that would qualify her for the presidency?

The notion that Obama and Biden don't have the experience necessary either, does not mean she does. At the least, both of them have experience with national politics - not that that would motivate me to vote for them, but at the least, they know the area.

Palin OTOH, has the stunning executive experience as mayor of a small town and as a less than a full term governor of a rather small state? And have you seen her interviewed? She's a bumbling, incoherent fucking moron. And she is all about taking away the reproductive rights of women.

I would rather see Big Bird as veep.

DuWayne -

Palin is more experienced than Obama. She is running for vice president and he is running for PRESIDENT. I know that apples are oranges in lefty land, but do you understand the difference?

- you should have began and ended your rant with this...

"And she is all about taking away the reproductive rights of women."

That's what its all about for you, isn't it? Abortion?

By the way, take off your ideological blinders and take a long hard look at Joe Biden. Palin appears to be splitting the atom everytime she speaks compared to that gas bag...my most recent favorite is how he pontificated that FDR went on television and calmed everyone down in 1929 after the stock market crash. Too bad Hoover was president in 1929 and Roosevelt didn't appear on television until 1939. Can you imagine if Palin or McCain had made such an error? The MSM would be all over it. How Palin was unqualified and McCain was senile.

Biden finished in the bottom ten of his law school class at Syracuse. He's also committed plagiarism...TWICE.

Seems to me that you only worry about the experience of a candidate if they have an R after their name. Spare me the bullshit and just admit that you don't like Palin's politics.

Why can't you admit that Palin is more qualified to be POTUS than Obama? Its clearly true by any objective standard, isn't it?

lujlp -

If you are sick of hearing how Reagan won the Cold War then go read a Howard Zinn book. He'll tell you what you want to hear.

For those of us that aren't looking at the inside of our colons, historical fact will be just fine.

Reagan is rightly remembered for leading us to victory in the Cold War. Your wilful ignorance of history and hatred for the Republican Party will never change that fact.

Jim, congrats, no one on this board will ever think of you as stupid again - we know it as a fact now.

Tell me how exacly is an atheist jew who bashes All religion as crap a christian?

Tom since your againt the demonization of political foes and the dehuminising horror of critisism and hurtful, spiteful words whats your position of the republican party's endorsement of torture?

And Tom saying Palin is more quailified to be president then Obama is like saying an earth worm is more evolved than a tape worm.

Its technicslly true but from our vantage point the difference is meaningless, plus a tape worn comes prepared to burrow up peoples asses

First of all Tom, I am NOT an Obama supporter. Do you comprehend that now?

And no, it's not all about reproductive rights, although that is important to me. I also abhor her stance on the rights of the vast majority of my friends (non-heteros). But most importantly, I abhor her lack of experience. And no, I don't believe that she is more qualified that Obama - he at least knows national politics and has more experience in politics overall, than that stammering fucking moron, Palin.

She is running for vice president and he is running for PRESIDENT.

And if McCain wins, she could very well end up as president.

Seems to me that you only worry about the experience of a candidate if they have an R after their name.

I loathe the dems just about as much as the republicans. And I have actually worried quite a bit about Obama's experience too, moreso than hers, because it is far more likely that he will become president than she will. But she was the one you mentioned and while you may want to pretend otherwise, in most every way that counts, Obama has more experience. That does not mean that I support him or think he has the experience necessary to be president - being preferable to Palin is not a high bar to meet.

And yes, of course I despise her politics. Shes a fucking neanderthal. But this wasn't much a discussion of her politics, as it was a discussion about her fitness as a potential president of the U.S., so I focused more on the question at hand.

Hmm must be the day for me to stick up for the ladies, very strange for me to have to do that.

Reagan deserves credit, but lets not forget Maggie Thatcher, the old iron lady for keeping him on course when he got nervous from time to time. Reagan had some serious allies backing him up.

I wonder when she got started in politics, did they poo-poo her representative experience as too little for the big chair as well?

I am beginning to wonder if it is that she is pretty. Some people support Women just because they are women, then an attractive woman runs for office and its lets talk about her family and dis her experience. Same women of course had no problem voting for a hick governor from Arkansas.

They doth protest too much.

Tom, tell you what, you show me how Reagan got russian officals to steal public funds, or show how he helped to put any russian leader in power and I'll belive you

Gods, I don't know why I didn't peg you for a party hack, but I didn't. Silly mistake on my part. Republicratic hacks just aren't worth engaging - nothing of substance there, just their great parties line.

I apologize for assuming you might engage in rational debate.

But please, let Palin speak for herself;

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.

Stumped by Katie Couric, does anyone really need to criticize this blithering idiot? Note that she doesn't even address the fucking question Katie asked.

Jim -

Well played regarding Thatcher..."Don't go wobbly on me now!"

God Bless The Iron Lady....

lujlp

You are incoherent.

lujlp - As to the Republicans supporting torture, I refer you to this CNN story entitled "McCain, Bush Agree on Torture Ban."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/

By all means, don't let reality get in the way of your blind hatred of people who disagree with Liberal Theology...

As to the Republicans supporting torture, I refer you to this CNN story entitled "McCain, Bush Agree on Torture Ban."

ROTFFL!?! yup, that shows us non-repub hacks! Nothing to see here anymore, move along - excuse the water boarding on your way out.

Obama has more experience.

In what way? Obama was a community organizer who never ran the organization. He was a trial lawyer who never argued a case. He was a state legislator who voted "present" 129 times. He was a university lecturer who never tried for tenure. He is a first-term US Senator who has asked for more earmark money in four years than most senators get in a lifetime.

Yeah, buddy. That's some wicked experience there.

Especially when compared with a woman who was mayor (of an admittedly small town - 6,000 inhabitants), head of the state agency responsible for overseeing oil and gas drilling and production, and is a first-term governor.

Palin may only have 1/2 a term as a governor, but Obama only has 2/3 of a term as a US senator. And, like governor, US senator is a statewide office, not a national office. The senator answers to the state's voters.

And, what's more, Palin's jobs entailed actual responsibility. Obama's jobs were all committee or advisory jobs. Which type of job do you think prepares you better for being a chief executive. I'll give you a hint...it ain't the one where you're one of 100 votes - or allowed to vote "present" to avoid a controversy.

Personally, I think Palin needs to finish out the term and get a little more seasoning. But to say Obama has more relevant experience is to say that the moon actually is made of cheese.

More of Katie and Sarah;

Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.

ROTFFL!?! yup, that shows us non-repub hacks!

Don't panic, honey. They're only facts. They can't hurt you unless you let them.

Duwayne, have you watched any unscripted, untelepromted Obama speeches? He puts Palin to shame, alright. My personal fav is when he can't think of the answer to a question, and stalls with his usual everpresent ums, and then tries to tell the completely silent, totally calm and uninspired crown to "settle down, please".

It's on youtube. I'd post, if I thought you'd look or admit what you see.

momof3, would you post? I don't believe you. I think Katie Couric is a far more courteous interviewer than the idiotic Bill O'Reilly, and Obama did fine with him. I doubt there was a telepromter there. Puts Palin to shame? She couldn't form sentences! Did you watch any of the interview?

"But to say Obama has more relevant experience is to say that the moon actually is made of cheese."

Actually, one time, the most of people on this earth including Jesus himself believed that it is made of cheese. The truth was not important as they did not know it was not made of cheese.

What is important is that the voters think Obama Christ has the relevant experience to lead us out of this financial mess to the promised land than McCain , Bush's buddy. We both know that that is not true. However, that is not important.

If you don't believe me, just check the recent poll. The Republicans will lose this presidential election just as the same way they won last two times.

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0BRrcKU6dI

You can search Obama idiot and get lots more. So let's not act like stumbling over a question from Katie Couric wins you the crown.

"we're ill about this position that we have been put in." -Palin

Interesting choice of words. To me, that implies that some else is to blame for the poor economy other than Americans. Which I'm pretty sure is not true. Even as a kid, the problem seemed SORT of obvious. I lived in a small connecticut town in the nineties, and all my neighbors built palatial estates, building additions to their already large houses and getting shiny new cars. One neighbor in particular was doing all this and getting a pool. The thing that confused me at ten was this; I knew the guy was a salesman for the same company my dad worked for, and that my dad made more money. So I asked my dad, "why don't we build additions to the house like Mr. So-and-so?" My dad laughed and said, "because we don't have the money to do so." then I asked, "But if you make more money than he does and WE don't have enough, how does he pay for it all?" then he explained to me how all my neighbors were playing the dicey game of double mortgages, money lenders, bank loans, and how one can get the money now and pay for it later. Issue? none of my neighbors were going to pay it back later. The equation only works if you KNOW you're going to have the money later. So all my neighbors are now whining about their financial woes. My father is fine, with absolutely no debt, a house he owns and cars he's all paid off on. Something none of those neighbors can say.

I'd truly love to hear a presidential candidate put it straight. The government can help, but it cannot fix, the bad debt and spend woes of America. We got ourselves here as people. Those giant corporations that over spent and banks that overlent? They're americans, not some evil spectre of economic despair. The goverment, I truly hope, is comprised of american individuals. Every sector of people, from citizen to company to government, wildly overspent the real budget and the truth is that neither candidate can fix the problem. Id like to hear McCain or Obama say "Don't friggin buy and Xbox 360, or a motorcycle, or expensive shoes. Don't invest in stocks based on perceived future company expense. Save some of it for the future, and take some responsibility for the situation at hand instead of blaming entities such as the government for your problems."

I think its out of my system. Anyways, I actually like both candidates, contrary to the members of this board. I think at the very least each of them is decent at BEING politic, which is something George Bush never even came close to being. I think their approaches to foreign policy, while different, are grounded in logic, they're just different philosophic perspectives. The only issue i'm having now, at this stage in the game, is that they're trying to form images for the public and I can no longer see what they truly stand for or believe anymore, with all the crap flying in the air as we get near the election. Obama wants to paint McCain as nothing but an extension of the Bush regime, which doesn't seem true, and McCain wants to paint Obama as a naive Rock Star who lacks substance. McCain wants to paint himself as the Maverick, Obama wants to be .... "Change?"

Whatever. None of those labels are patently true. Does anyone know any good books or sources on either of them? Where can I find their voting records to set things straight? Anything thats not a youtube interview?

Oh please. That was one clip (from youtube, not CBS), and he was inarticulate, but I get where he was going. It's cheaper to give kids inhalers than have them end up in an ER with an asthma attack. I was able to draw that out.

Sarah Palin was speaking gibberish in that interview. Read was DuWayne posted. Does it make any sense at all? And when I search Obama idiot, the majority of clips are screeching about him being Muslim, so pardon me if I blow those off. The actual clips of him saying anything stupid are all some version of the one example you gave. Sarah Palin didn't stumble, that's the scary part. She just gave gibberish answers and looked pleased with herself.

The problem is simple enough to understand with just a couple of truths that are self evident and do not involve any invisible friends.
We have the Taliban who live on a flat earth.
At the other end of the same piece of rope are the Christians living on a 6000 year old earth.

Both are mad as whistling kettles and should read something other than their good books.
As for a vice president who talks in tongues, funny that was not at the top of my list of presidential prerequisites.

Sam - that's all well and good, but we've made it illegal for the children to carry their inhalers with them in the public schools.

Obama's supporters are going to have to come to grips with a singularly unpleasant truth: Obama is NOT the intelligent, urbane gentleman you were sold. He is, in fact, a room-temperature IQ thug in an expensive suit.

He is the ultimate front for Chicago thug politics.

So, I said I had a clip from youtube, you asked to see said clip from youtube, now you're knocking it from being from youtube? If the MSM was willing to show anything less than Messiahlike from Obama, it probably would've been on CNN. Lord knows it would've been if it was McCain, with all the attendant talking heads worrying about alzeimers. It can strike in your 40's, you know. Maybe we do need to worry about it with Obama.

And if you were capable of pulling his thought out of that gibberish, you're quite the mindreader.

I don't care that she doesn't actually answer the questions she's asked. What politician does? I like that she's prolife. I don't think it's going to make a damn bit of difference in american policy, but at least she's on the right side. I don't care what she believes personally as to religion, she's not trying to legislate it. And if you all are really so worried she's going to try to pop creationism in next to evolution as an alternative theory (as if the VP, or P, has that sort of power), why? Why are you so worried, if it's so absurd and patently false, and not supported by science. Seems like you'd want to expose it for what it is, instead of hiding it away. I don't find it any more absurd than all the stupid philosophy theories (what a waste of mental time!) I was forced to study in school. I believe in evolution and God, personally, and so do most christians.

Does it worry you less to have a man who's religion is hate, in the white house? Who's good friends and spiritual leaders for most off his life hate america and americans? Is that somehow better than creationism? How?

Self loathing can be corrected, to often religion is terminal

momof3 -

It's on youtube. I'd post, if I thought you'd look or admit what you see.

Fucking well post it then. Not that it will influence my voting in this election, because as I have said repeatedly and very clearly, I am not voting for Obama, nor do I fucking well support him in any way. I just happen to see him as preferable to Palin and McCain. But that isn't a very high bar and very much a matter of scale.

And considering interviews that I have seen with him, compared to ones I have seen with Palin, there really isn't any comparison. She's a blithering fucking moron. He's not.

But if it helps any, I would prefer Mr. Rogers (deceased as he is) to anyone running in this election cycle - including Obama.

My bad, you did post it. And yup, he sounds pretty ridiculous, as ridiculous as Palin does on a regular basis.

I like that she's prolife.

Sorry to hear that. Personally, just as much as I support a women's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, I also support a women's right to choose not to have one. My partner and I had to discuss the possibility of terminating the pregnancy of our now nine month old, when we were told that tests showed a significant risk of DS. Further testing showed that he was not a down syndrome baby, but had he been, we would have had no choice but to end it. I find it absolutely repulsive that there are folks who would like to take that choice away. We already have a child with severe ADHD and possibly bipolar disorder - a DS child would not be a possibility.

And if you all are really so worried she's going to try to pop creationism in next to evolution as an alternative theory (as if the VP, or P, has that sort of power), why? Why are you so worried, if it's so absurd and patently false, and not supported by science.

Because it isn't fucking science and doesn't belong in a science class. I have no problems with it being taught in a comparative religions context, it is religious in nature. But it has no business in science classes, where evolution is taught. Thankfully, there isn't a question there, the courts were clear on that before I was even born and have knocked down every trojan horse attempt to put it back into science classes.

On November 4th.. save America.. ask for a paper ballot and write in "Ron Paul - President"

We don't have to choose these other losers.

Conan -

Sorry, I missed your post up there completely.

Again, to make sure that I am clear with everyone - I do not support Obama, nor will I vote for him.

You missed a few things there, such as;

Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.[13][27] He served from 1993 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation.[13] Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.[13] He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.[13]

That would certainly seem to be more than a mere underling cog in the machinery.

And he was also a state senator for several years before he ran for the U.S. senate seat. A senate seat with which he hasn't been inactive. While I realize that his position is as an elected senator from his state, he is very much involved in national politics in that position. More experience than Palin has in national politics.

And I would daresay that he never shot for tenure, because he never intended to teach in the long term. He probably had an interest in politics long before he actually got into elected office - he studied poly-sci, taught poly-sci and did the sort of community work that looks really good on a politicians resume. So why would he try for tenure, when he wasn't planning on being a university professor for all that long?

I already fucking posted it.

While we're on the subject, is anyone else seriously disturbed by this?:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129137.html

I'll be dead and buried before my kids are sent to Obama (re)training camps. Or any mindwashing camp, for that matter. Sick.

mom0f3 -

I did follow up, after I found you had posted it.

DuWayne - time will show that Obama is a moron. A LITERAL moron. As in IQ

He just happens to be a savant who can read a teleprompter and emote well.

There's no way in hell he got into Harvard Law on his own merit. He must suck one HELL of a dick.

Project much Brian?

DuWayne,

Those are all Board of Director positions. Again, committee and advisory positions, not direct reponsibility jobs.

Governor and mayor are direct responsibility jobs. You can't avoid controversy by voting "present" to maintain your political viability. You can't hide behind 99 other votes.

Project much Brian?

Nah. I'm not into dick.