Yes, obama's arrogance and hubris will not attract all those women who supported Hillary. Here is a man who is supposed to be so progressive but never once acknowledged how sexism, misogyny, and male privilege was used at every turn to advantage Obama and derail Hillary. And I predict if he does not select her as his VP running mate, those women will not "come along," as the Obamaphiles like to put it. After all, she received almost 18 million votes!

If the tables were turned and she were the nominee and he were a very close second, do you think she would consider anyone but obama as a running mate? Of course not, since African Americans would be protesting in the streets. Yet Obama shows his arrogance once again, as well as his insenstivity to women, by "dissing" Hillary and all the women who have supported her. That arrogance could prove to be his fatal flaw!

I think all this Obama is arrogant crap is about the old fear of the uppitidy negro. On his trip overseas Obama and his meeting with world leaders Obama was measured in his meetings with world readers and stood up for the U.S. He didn't criticize President Bush or make outlandish promises or statements. Americans should be proud that we have a potential leader who viewed in a positive manner overseas. Maybe if President Bush had gone overseas and schmoozed with world leaders he would have found less resistance and more support.

The arrogance starts at the top! Candidate Obama is THE ONE. He told us so. WHEN he becomes President (not a mere if) the earth will begin to heal, the lion and the lamb will lie down together and there will be war no more.

Gerald Baker's article in the Times yesterday tells it all. "And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. ........."
[www.timesonline.co.uk]

I agree with Pauline..If the shoe were on the other foot, Clinton wouldn't even hesitate to ask Obama to be her VP... Obama will not ask her but yet he wants Clinton supporters to vote for him?It's laughable! Obama better wake up and realize that more people than ever are Independents and we're not a bunch of robots voting down party lines anymore..I would also suggest he takes Susan Estrich's advice and puts his arrogant big ego away...It's a real turn-off...

It gave me great joy to see how extravagantly Obama can spend the money of those poor pathetic Obamanots!

The one thing this trip did remind us is that Obama has no international experience, despite his claim that living in Indonesia as a child qualified him to be Preisdent.

This Kabuki theater that we have been forced to see has driven home the point on 2 major issues>

1/ There is no longer any pretense that the media are in the can for Obama
2/ That the belief that a 4-5 day trip to Middle East will somehow raise this baffoon into the Ranks of world leader is an insult to the American electorate.

I have often seen people like him in business, devoid of thought, untalented, floating through and unwilling to pay the dues necessary while expecting major reward. The fall is always hard and immediate......Must be terrible to live everyday wondering when everything will collapse.

The Obama Tour de Bore is over, our savior will be on our shores, alas we can be safe!

Pride goes before the fall....

I believe there is a huge voting block that absolutely will not support BO. I also believe there is a substantial block that is undecided. In the end, I don't believe he will be able to convince us that he is a man of solid character, sound judgement, and laudable achievements. Nothing in his past bears that out...he is his own worst enemy. And we all know, that come October the sh** wil hit the fan.

Pauline: Arrogance and hubris are what cost Hillary the nomination. They haven't cost Obama a thing yet. Your gal lost. Get over it.

Another great article by Susan--the only Democrat out there brave enough to tell the truth. Obama was a risky choice from the start. His arrogance is his Achilles heel... and will likely be his undoing (well, that and his utter inexperience). John McCain is likely to only serve one term as President, so Hillary will be waiting for 2012. Obama will be just another liberal who lost an election he could've won.

I demand a recount!

Marross Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a social worker of 30 years and know how to
> read people. However it doesn't take a PhD to
> recognize how shallow and arrogance Obama is- it's
> so transparent! His only talent is giving
> speeches, having stolen the style and cadence of
> Rev. Wright and adding trite sound bites like "We
> are who can". He can't answer a simple question
> without stuttering and "umming". His background is
> a fairy tale to cover his ties to the corrupt
> Chicago machine. His team has done a good job of
> hiding the real story, with the help of the media.
> What is really amusing though, is the responses of
> his followers to the slightest criticism of
> Obama-such as this article. They never address the
> questions about his character, policies, tactics,
> etc. Instead they either personally attack the
> author of the article (an old Republican ploy) or
> chalk it up to "racism". How intelligent! I think
> Obama's arrogance and his followers fanaticism
> (shades of 1936 Germany) will be his downfall.

I'm an educator of 20 and "know how to read people." Hillary lost in part because she comes across as fundamentally dishonest. Come on, Maross. GET OVER IT. SHE LOST.

Pauline Wrote:

> And I predict if he
> does not select her as his VP running mate, those
> women will not "come along," as the Obamaphiles
> like to put it. After all, she received almost 18
> million votes!

You are correct Pauline. Sen. Obama better not be arrogant when making his VP selection. He needs Sen. Clinton on the ticket if he even wants to have a chance of winning. The latest FOX poll shows Sen. Obama with the slimest of leads-only one percent (41% to 40%). However, with Sen. Clinton on the ticket (against a McCain-Romney ticket) Sen. Obama's lead jumps to nine percent (48% to 39%). And for all those who say Sen. Clinton will hurt Sen. Obama with independents, his support with independents moves from 34%-32% to 38%-30% when he adds Clinton to the ticket. If anyone is having trouble with independents, it is Sen. Obama, not Sen. Clinton. The bottom line is Sen. Obama is too much of an unknown. The only way to solve that problem is to place someone on the ticket who is very well known, like Sen. Clinton. The only question now is if Sen. Clinton really wants to be on a ticket with Sen. Obama, who may be unelectable no matter who he selects to be the vice presidential nominee.

Jay Georges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Susan, you are one of people who want to see Obama
> as an arrogant person, and yet never give any
> concret fact to backup the accusation. I have not
> found in this article any item supporting the
> premise (arrogance) of your article. Therefore,
> the arrogance theorits remind me those who during
> thhe primary sworn that Obama will not carry
> Hispanic votes because Hispanics and Blacks don't
> like each other. At this point at least, though
> things can change, he wins among Hispanics 3 to 1
> That Pensylvenia will be out of his column because
> he is elitist, yet at this point he leads your
> McCain there.
> In fact the theory of Obama's arrogance started
> when he announced his candidacy. The pundits'
> wisdom then was that he lacks experience to run
> for the highest office. The so called pundits
> concluded that he runs because he is presumptuous.
> All these disparaging adjective did not prevent
> him from beating 30-year old electoral machine.
> It is just sad that the so called pundits
> presumptuously believe they can guide the thinking
> process of Americains by making them believe what
> they want them to believe. If pundits were often
> right, the democratic primary would have ended on
> super Tuesday; Obama would never have been the
> democratic nominee; the candidate of Hannity and
> Limbaugh, Romney would have been the republican
> nominee. Thus, I will ask you to shut up and watch
> history evolve.


Mr. Georges,
May I suggest spell check?

It is exceeding arrogant to ask others to shut up and watch "history evolve." But I do believe that was Ms. Estrich's point......

Neither the enthralled media and all his Obamabots will succeed in forcing his candidacy down our throats. Traditional democrats are realizing that the Party has left us at the curb in favor of this post national candidate. We're not with Obama or the Party in 2008.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!! What you said was Brillant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Baffled Democrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a college professor, as far to the left as
> you can imagine and what Obama is doing begins to
> horrify me. If you watch any - any - documentary
> on Hitler, you bound to notice frightening and
> striking similarities between the raise of Hitler
> and Obama campaing -- to say the least- : the lack
> of self-irony, huge deliberately staged rallies,
> fear of debates, unability to engage in rational
> criticsm, reliance on charisma and rhetoric,
> branding (logo, seal, etc), fainting women,
> religious iconography, tighly controlled
> messianistic self-image, hope/change/unity
> platitudes, bildungroman autobiography,
> indoctrinated youths followers, the use of new
> media in crafting and controlling the message,
> etc. Electing democrat is extremely importan to
> me, but it begins to dawn on me as well that
> democracy is not guaranteed and it might be better
> to put up with McCain for four years than have
> someone who uses Hitler's spectacular strategies
> to manufacture power and gravitas.

>> This is total crap... McSame wants a hundred more years of war in the middle East. He's the bozo I'd be afraid of.

Sorry but in terms of who more of a 'bozo' I suggest you look into mirror. If you spend time in high school reading history books, you would know that it has been pver 60 years since WWII ended and we still have an army in Germany, in Korea and elsewhere. That is what McCain means. He means it because he understand the function of the army, our strategic needs and the needs of the people who will feel safer with the U.S. hanging around, both for political and economic reasons. Please, educated yourself a bit in world history before you repeat bumper sticker slogans.

"I think all this Obama is arrogant crap is about the old fear of the uppity negro." - S Gerstner #3

Those who think that Obama's problems are about race are merely trying to obscure his real problems of character and judgment. I have asked myself repeatedly whether, were Obama white, I would vote for him. The answer is a resounding no. The white candidate that most closely approximated Obama was John Edwards and I could not stomach him either.

What do you call it when someone has a personalized Presidential designed for himself before he is even elected? What do you call it when someone puts down his fellow citizens for not being fluent in foreign languages? What do you call it when a Presidential candidate gives a speech before the masses in Berlin in a craven attempt to borrow on the luster of Kennedy and Reagan?

And speaking of the speech in Berlin, did everyone observe the "runway" they set up leading to the podium, reminiscent of the Miss America contest? All he needed was a crown and scepter. Obama could not merely step up to the podium like normal mortals. This was no mere Congressional tour as McCain might take.

Every step of the way was carefully orchestrated by an army of campaign workers to give the best effects down to the minutest detail. His supporters ate it up. They crow about how well-run his campaign is, as if this were any criteria upon which to elect a President... The ability to present a candidate as something he is not.

Estrich is right. Obama IS arrogant. His campaign is arrogant. And many of his supporters are arrogant as well. The only thing I can say in defense of Obama and his people is that "they know not what they do."

When will folk figure it out? There is no prize
for coming in second. None. Remember the Tortoise and
the Hare story? Hillary--the Hare-- snoozed through
the first part of the (delegate) race and couldn't catch up.
Losing the primary was Hillary's fault. Nobody else's.

I feel sorry for the sincere people who succumbed to
Hillary's manipulative machinations. Can't you see?
Hillary didn't run as the women's candidate, or the Dixiecrat, until
she got desperate. Once she got voters foaming at the mouth
about race and sex and regional divides, she took off her Scarlett
suit, hid her dirty hands behind her back, and cried foul.

And look at Hillary now... She's backing
Obama. Shouldn't she be somewhere pouting
and threatening to vote for McCain? Of course not.
Hillary's too smart for that.

None of this detracts from the fact that Hillary is
a brilliant woman. She just lost this time. That's all.

It's so lame to write a critical editorial accusing someone of something quite grave (arrogance) with ZERO evidence, except an 'unnamed source,' and a crop of untold stories.

PATHETIC! If you're going to make an allegation at least have some evidence to cite. RIDICULOUS. One person she doesn't name and a bunch of untold stories. We're supposed to be convinced.

So he goes to Europe, gets treated like he's president and acts like he's president- what alternative do you suggest? That he's not and he doesn't?

So stupid.

Funny....
BECAUSE:
Arrogance won the last tw0.

DrMike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would seem that so many touting their
> education. One would think they would know the
> difference between a fact and an opinion. You
> would think they would know something about
> selective perception and self-fulfilling
> prophesies. If you don't like a person's
> positions, that's fine. I guess that's not how
> elections work. You have to tear down the person.
>
>
> The problem is when you tear down another person
> (nomatter who it is) you are only telling on
> yourself.

Obama is for OBAMA. A selfless, civic minded thought would die of loneliness in his head.

You are absolutely right that Obama should be running very scared, but still not let them see him sweat. It should be frightening that the country is so disgusted with Bush, yet Obama has such a slim lead, if a real polling lead at all, given the infamous Bradley effect. If Obama were white, with his brains and charm, he would be twenty points ahead now. But middle America is still racist, scared as hell, and very provincial. They're filled with the resentment which makes them excellent haters. So Obama's got a lot to worry about, if he and his campaign are as smart as we think they are. Obama can't help it that when you take away American racism, and add higher levels of European education, not to mention European hatred, for good reason, of American neocons and their puppets Bush and McCain, hundreds of thousands turn out to cheer him on. They appreciate what he has to offer the world, without resentment or fear, and they are much more realistic than Middle America about the disastrous implications of letting the neocons use McCain to control America for four more years.

>>>>Wow. Thanks for this.
Go with your instinct. Vote McCain.
You are right.

Just another Obama supported engaging in meaningfull crtitical discussion. You guys just make me want to re-evaluate my fears. With your wit, sophistication and world knowledge, hands down, I am in awer.

The campaign is what's arrogant. Not the candidate, per se.

Hillary's "arrogant" campaigners now work for Obama.

Another media meltdown in the offing?

Hey Estrogen, give it up already. HILLARY LOST. A Clinton will never, ever, dwell in the White House again. Hoping for an Obama loss will NOT bring Hillary back in 2012. The party's powers elite and machine have turned the page on the Clintons. They have moved on, and you should too.

Now that we all know that Fox News is fed its talking points directly from the White House (and by extension, we assume also from McBush "3", John McCain), I'm afraid what you have to say, Susan, is now taken by us as.............propaganda and green cheese. McCain and the GOP are just so jealous of Obama's stately presidential demeanor, vs McCain's waving arms, little boy tantrum spectacle this week, peppered by outright lies and frigtening lacunae in knowledge re the America-Iraq engagement timetable, especially re the Anbar awakening.

Susan, you have a lot of misinformation in there.

Of the major polls doing nationwide tracking, Gallup, Rasmussen, and NBC/WSJ ALL have Obama up +6 (with a margin of error of +- 2). That is NOT a statistical tie. Only Fox News' poll has the candidates in a statistical tie. (No suprise there.)

Obama is NOT behind in Ohio. RCP averages have him ahead by 1.5%.

The election is close. There is no inevitability. You can make your point without misleading your readers. And this from the supposedly "liberal" commentator for Fox News.

Arent all Marist arrogant. that seems to be one of their common traits so why would anyone be surprised. Senator Obama was no ideas, no governing philosphy other then how the government can solve your problems, when was the last time you ever heard a free market based solution come from the mouth of Senator Obama no matter what the issue he always comes back around and ends up with with a government solution. hes a true believer in the power of the government. If you think this country needs more government or that the government should involve itsself in the day to day lives of its citizens then the Marist approach is you, and senator Obama would be your candidate. John McCain is no day at the beach himself,but at least with him the people would have a buffer with congress. a left leaning congree left unchecked would make the american people vunerable to insane and costly legislation which you know that senator Obama would endorse since he has no history of bucking the party line. Ive got to add this in... this talk about McCain and his gaffes and what have you. ever hear obama speak without a prepared text? his middle name is gaffe. Senator obama is a walking Gaffe and he isnt old. let me bottom line this right now the dude is dangerous.

doctormark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Baffled Democrat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am a college professor, as far to the left as
> > you can imagine and what Obama is doing begins
> to
> > horrify me. If you watch any - any -
> documentary
> > on Hitler, you bound to notice frightening and
> > striking similarities between the raise of
> Hitler
> > and Obama campaing -- to say the least- : the
> lack
> > of self-irony, huge deliberately staged
> rallies,
> > fear of debates, unability to engage in
> rational
> > criticsm, reliance on charisma and rhetoric,
> > branding (logo, seal, etc), fainting women,
> > religious iconography, tighly controlled
> > messianistic self-image, hope/change/unity
> > platitudes, bildungroman autobiography,
> > indoctrinated youths followers, the use of new
> > media in crafting and controlling the message,
> > etc. Electing democrat is extremely importan
> to
> > me, but it begins to dawn on me as well that
> > democracy is not guaranteed and it might be
> better
> > to put up with McCain for four years than have
> > someone who uses Hitler's spectacular
> strategies
> > to manufacture power and gravitas.
>
>
> This is total crap... McSame wants a hundred more
> years of war in the middle East. He's the bozo
> I'd be afraid of.


Amen, DoctorMark. You said it very well. My jaw dropped as I listened to Obama address a huge crowd of Germans. Not only did he not mention the Holocaust or the German's failure to take responsibility for their horrendous past, but he acted as though the Germans have always been the good guys, and the Communists, those evil Reds, the enemy. I was shocked at his lack of knowledge of history. And his arrogance is off the charts. No one who remembers or who has studied WWII could watch Obama without thinking of Adolph. Very, very scary indeed.

The American hating left turned out in Europe for BO. They love it when they see a weak liberal like Jimmy Carter, not leading the US but following European socialists.

The taring down of America will make the European and American left feel good. But will the great American center tolerate a man who attended an anti-white racist "church" for 23 years? I think not.

THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE IS WELL CHOSEN AND SAYS IT ALL: ARROGANCE WON'T WIN THE ELECTION. And it has nothing to do with race. It's just that Obama's undistinguished record doesn't give him the right to be so cocky. I am not happy that McCain may win. And I do think McCain may win. If he does, the Supreme Court and the environment in particular, will be irreparably harmed. That being said, I have serious, serious doubts about Obama, who has been kinged by the naive and the guilty, without merit. Democrats......you made a big mistake. This is a lose lose situation. The only bright light would be if King Obama chose Hillary as his VP. If he does that, I'm in.

A rather childish article from such an intelligent woman. Maybe the emotions got the better of her. Maybe it is still the emotions over Hillary not winning the primaries. And now it is the reflex of striking back. Somehow. Anyhow you can. What ever seems appropriate. And that is how people make fools of themselves.
Why? Here the way I see it:

1. The headline: "Arrogance Won't Win the Election."
Whow. What insights. When did arrogance ever do that? When did arrogance ever win anything? We all know the answer, don't we? Or at least we should. There you have it. Why then that title ?
But then also the question may be asked what exactly is "the arrogance" you are writing about Arrogance? Is it what somebody does and says or is it what somebody perceives as such?
Or is it when an opponent -somebody suffering fom envy and jealousy - just qualifies the opponent's sayings as" arrogance"? What is it?

2. "The Beatles come to America! Barack Obama goes abroad!"
Hardly a logical assessment and comparison. Or is Obama the first ever US politician who drew large crowds when visiting Europe and was enthusiastically welcomed everywhere else he travelled? No certainly not.
But since the last GOP president doesn't draw any crowds to speak of anywhere in the world -except for protestors maybe- and the present candidate cannot even fill a hall in the US with more than 900 people, what better argument can be made than to cheapen the Obama success with a comparison to a popular musicgroup out of the sixties. Talk about selective history.
A logically false comparison to boot. The association of a politician to a showband is a cheap one too, Susan Estrich. The intent is to cheapen the candidate, nothing else.

3. "The point of the trip, of course, was to give Obama gravitas on foreign policy issues, to help voters forget that he is only six years removed from the Illinois State Senate and only eight years from having his credit card declined when he tried to rent a car at the 2000 Los Angeles convention (a story he used to tell on himself). "

Why would he want anybody to forget that Obama is "only eight years from having his credit card declined when he tried to rent a car "? Do you consider that as something bad? Is it important to be born with a silverspoon like Bush, or getting rich on their post presidential dealings like the Clintons, or getting your riches on account of your second marriage like McCain - in order to be electable? You make it sound that way. Why?
I would be inclined to believe that more americans are familiar with creditcard issues than to what do do "with their eight estates" and their private jet issues.
I believe it shows that Obama is closer to the "non-bitter" unemployed people in PA and OH than a Hillary or a McCain ever could. At least they -Hillary and McCain- never had to content with the issue of how to pay for a rental car.

4. "It's the folks in the middle, the folks who haven't deecided, the folks who need convincing or are inclined not to like him, or are still smarting from the defeat of Hillary Clinton, who will decide this election. "

People who are "are still smarting from the defeat of Hillary Clinton" cannot not be moved by anything. That is quite obvious by your article as well as by the comments here in this forum. The emotional impact is so strong that these people will not support Obama out of personal anger alone -even if it means that they support McCain -and the politics he stands for.
The political differences between Hillary and Obama are so minute -not a sheet of paper fits between.
The political views of McCain are virtually identical with those of Bush.
And yet, the personal emotion affecting many Hillary supporters is such that they will gladly ignore all that, all women issues -only to satisfy their anger.

5. "Did the foreign trip move them?"
As I said, nothing Obama does will move "them". Why Obama went on his tour was not to to move "them". It was aimed at others -"those" who are actually are able to take an unemotional look at the candidates and weigh their capabilities and projections.

6. "They think they can't lose," one of the smartest people I know said to me this week, describing the attitude he sees on display in the Obama campaign. He isn't the first one to say it."

A "zero content" statement. Entirely. You fail to state who said it and based on what the person you quote said it. As far as I know, your mother in law could have said it. Or the 9 year old kid from the across the street. Anybody. You could even have entirely imagined it that somebody did say it. It is completely inconsequential.
I learned a long time ago: If you quote, back it up with facts -unless you are interested in "inuendo". Are you? It looks that way.

7. "There is no reason for arrogance. "
Is there ever? Where and when?

8. "Once he gets past the convention, McCain will run a better campaign. "

Why would he intentionally run an inferior campaign now?
Or do you see "campaign running capabilities" magically appear then that are not available to him now? Which should/could that be? I feel there is some wishful thinking buried in that prediction devoid of any substance.

9." He will run as an insurgent, an independent, a man who defies labels, the guy who championed immigration reform and stood up to his colleagues on the left and right (remember the Gang of Fourteen that broke the logjam on judges),"

He is trying to do that now -while at the same time pandering to the right, which he cannot afford to loose. But what exactly will happen if he abandons their principles and lets the "maverick hang out" too much. Because at the right of him is Bob Barr. Collecting votes. Your seem not to know that.

10. "the guy who is tough enough and experienced enough to be president."
He is doing that since the primaries began. As long as he cannot keep the sunnis and the shiites apart and screws up everyday with memory lapses, such will not help his "toughness image". It further unmasks it as the "onset of senility".

11. "Obama could win, but he also could lose. "

Whow. Hardly a statement unbeknownst to voters. After all, isn't that what elections are for? Everybody knows that it is going to be decided after election day. Not before.
And I have not seen any report that the Obama campaign has said anything to the contrary -r isn't aware of that.
So, by throwing your piece of wisdom out there:

12. " If his campaign doesn't understand that now, they will pay for it in November."

It begs the question what makes that news- or print- worthy that you have to make that anouncement? Any particular reason? Or is it just saying "something" -anything?

Not only is McCrybaby complianing about this trip but now the press is jumped in because some of them didn't get to make the trip. So what do they do when they observe a pretty good trip for Obama, they join John McCain and the GOP and start @#$%& and moaning about the coverage. I guess McCain forgot that he did suggest that Obama make this trip. McCain should be happy that his trip back in the spring didn't get as much coverage because what most Americans would have seen is cranky old man who is mad at the world and seems to forget many important bits of information about the world we live in. Go to youtube and you will see many examples.

Jeanrenoir 39 wrote:

"If Obama were white, with his brains and charm, he would be twenty points ahead now."

Ummm, no. If Obama were white, with his brains and charm, and if everything went perfectly in his career for the next fifteen or twenty years, and if he was extremely lucky, he just might be considered for national office.

Obama was selected, not elected. He was selected by the Kennedy political machine and the Marxist moneybags, Soros and crew.

The Obama presidential campaign will die of terminal boredom. You can't live on a diet of sugar, and you can't win a political campaign of sweet nothings.

CKAinRedStateUSA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Obama" and "gravitas" in the same sentence?
>
> Only--ONLY--if you mean the extent of his leftist,
> out-of-touch-with-America, anti-capitalist,
> morally ambivalent, arrogant, narcissistic
> substance of who he was, is and will remain.
>
> As for his speech? As I read somewhere recently,
> he makes the vacuous sound profound.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here some of the "gravitas" the american voters elected into highest office twice. Twice:

"Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

"I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It's pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004

"Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?" —to economic advisers discussing a second round of tax cuts, as quoted by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, Washington, D.C., Nov. 26, 2002


"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." —Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002


Yeah baby, that's GRAVITAS! That is the "gravitas" that Americans grave.

Estrich misses the point again. No wonder Michael Dukakis got his clock cleaned. The trip was supposed to show that Obama could be a statesman and a Commander in chief. He failed the test miserably by continuing to say that he'd not support the surge even knowing now that it would work, by refusing to visit our troops so that he could work out at the gym instead because he wasn't going to be allowed to turn the trip into a photo op, to making a speech in Germany that was riddled with all sorts of factual errors.

Obama is an arrogant know nothing empty suit. He doesn't belong in the US Senate. And, he certainly doesn't belong sitting in the white House.

tonedef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's so lame to write a critical editorial
> accusing someone of something quite grave
> (arrogance) with ZERO evidence, except an 'unnamed
> source,' and a crop of untold stories.
>
> PATHETIC! If you're going to make an allegation at
> least have some evidence to cite. RIDICULOUS. One
> person she doesn't name and a bunch of untold
> stories. We're supposed to be convinced.
>
> So he goes to Europe, gets treated like he's
> president and acts like he's president- what
> alternative do you suggest? That he's not and he
> doesn't?
>
> So stupid.

Tonedef, you are a good reader. This is the emptiness I saw in Estrich's article. No evidence to substantiate the charge of arrogance. This blog has assembled a small and hateful group of repeat commentaries. Pure hate and envy, if you ask me. America will advance in spite of these people. These folks here act counter to their own cause by repeating the same old, tired falehoods about Obama. There is no way that a majority of Americans voters can be as backward as the small-minded haters who orbit with passion around inconsequential and empty opinions as Estrich's.

Again, I must say as above:
Simple answer to a simple headline....
Why not?????
Arrogance won the last two!

Willie39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dem in the Golden State Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > From one lefty college professor to another, I
> > completely agree with you and am baffled and
> > mortified that so many people have bought into
> the
> > Obama farce. Of course, he didn't win my
> state's
> > primary--and lost many key states in the
> > primary--so I can only hope that there are
> voters
> > out there who see Obama for what he really is:
> a
> > bright and promising, yet inexperienced
> candidate
> > who needs much more job training before he can
> be
> > promoted.
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Well "lefty professor", it may be an alien concept
> to you, but presidents are being "elected" in this
> country -not promoted. "Promotion into the highest
> office" is a concept more common in dictatorships
> -among them communists and the nazis.
>
> Wondering which institution gave you a professor
> job.


Who is surprised to find Willie39 throwing insults who disagrees with his cultic adoration of THE ONE, the Messiah, the Savior of Mother Earth? Obamabots are the ones who wish to crown the freshman junior senator from Illinois King and Willie39 is one of the foremost cheerleaders for all things Obama.

Willie39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rotten rick Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Barry, showed his true side when it came to
> > visiting the wounded troops. Yes, command
> > structure forbid bringing the Obamabots and
> using
> > the troops as photo-ops. But they DO NOT
> forbid
> > Barry and his Senate staff from visiting. If
> the
> > concern for the troops was REAL. He'ed have
> gone.
> > He still would have been well received BY
> POLITE
> > RESPECTFULL TROOPS. In many cases troops are
> just
> > happy someone came to see them, especially the
> > wounded. He chose to work out. One thing I will
> > tell you as Senior Chief Petty Officer retired
> > after 27 years, having dealt politicians over
> > those years. We can spot a phony. It'S EASY TO
> > GAUGE who has a real concern, not for us ,but
> the
> > country. Carter it may surprize you was on the
> > level. He believed in what he said, Both Bushes
> > the real deal, Kerry give me a break he had
> Remf
> > written all over him. Bubba,the I'm just here
> for
> > the beer frat boy. But the one most of us
> really
> > believed in was Ron. The one woman that most
> > american troops respected was Lady Thacher.
> Listen
> > you can bull s--t the fans, but not the
> players.
> > Barry smells.
> -----------------------------------------
> You just gave a fine display of the limitations of
> a CPO.
> I will show it to some of my navy friends.:-)))


Thank you "rottenrick" for your service to this wonderful country that has allowed people like Willie39 to immigrate here. Many of us are very grateful for the freedoms that your service has afforded us. God bless you and God bless America.

Ah, another daily dose of anti-Obama ranting from Fox "News," aka the GOP shill network. Must be tough being stuck with having to support a candidate like McCain, a kept man who has never had a paycheck in his life that wasn't from the government and who is dumb enough to believe that an occupation can be "won." Being on the wrong side of so many 67%-33% issues (Iraq, abortion, Bush tax cuts, etc.) leaves McCain peddling uphill, while Obama can just coast and I suppose that seems to be arrogance to those stuck backing an ancient loser. Dizzy Dean had it right: "It ain't braggin' if'n you kin do it." :-)

As an Obama supporter, there was little in this piece that I found fault with. This is truly a game of inches.
I do take exception with some of the posters. I'd like to take the time to address some of the rhetoric being espoused--and without calling out names or making disparaging comments.

I'll start by saying both race and sexism where present in the primaries. Though neither candidate would outright claim there were each played there respective card when the time came. That said, Hillary's loss came at the hands of her tumultuous campaign and Obama's opposition to the war. Beyond that, their stances were mostly identical. So for a Clinton supporter to vote McCain seems a bit disingenuous. It makes sense that you'd rally behind the candidate that identifies with the same beliefs that you do.

Despite what some conspirators would like to think, Obama wasn't "selected", he was elected. He ran a long campaign, that he could have easily had lost if not for the string of victories in February. A miscalculation on the Clinton's part to cede caucuses and some primaries.

Obama's liberal but what does that mean? Pro-life, "quasi"- gun control (wink, nod), bigger government... At the beginning of the primaries you could have added foreign policy, but not now. We've already seen that America has moved against the war, Bush has decided to talk to Iran, and has offered the prospect of time tables (even McCain is ceding timetables). Obama is still pro-Isreal. What exactly is it that conservatives are fearing? He even walked back talk about raising taxes given the shaky economy. He's against drilling (oh and that gas tax holiday).

The trip abroad was very well executed (except for the hospital flap). He did everything he was supposed to do. Nothing arrogant about that. McCain pulled the same stunt, albeit with less coverage. Speaking of which, the media wants full access but if that were ever granted (hypothetically speaking of course) everybody would overdose on Obama.

"Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world." - B Hussein Obama

What a liar! If he wasn't running for president he would not be over there flapping his big purple lips!

People are waking up to the fact that this guy is all talk ... nothing more than fancy speeches!

His lock-step liberal voting record doesn't match his rhetoric.

He may not even be a natural born citizen, if the latest accounts of his fake birth certificate are verified. Of course, the liberal media will continue to ignore the issue even if it's proven.

The polls don't look good for him at this point and his campaign and his liberal media entourage is sweating bullets because the polls don't have him up by 20% - 30% at this point.

I predict McCain wins by at least 5% in November!

IloveBaldwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oregonagain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Baffled Democrat Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I am a college professor, as far to the left
> as
> > > you can imagine and what Obama is doing
> begins
> > to
> > > horrify me. If you watch any - any -
> > documentary
> > > on Hitler, you bound to notice frightening
> and
> > > striking similarities between the raise of
> > Hitler
> > > and Obama campaing -- to say the least- : the
> > lack
> > > of self-irony, huge deliberately staged
> > rallies,
> > > fear of debates, unability to engage in
> > rational
> > > criticsm, reliance on charisma and rhetoric,
> > > branding (logo, seal, etc), fainting women,
> > > religious iconography, tighly controlled
> > > messianistic self-image, hope/change/unity
> > > platitudes, bildungroman autobiography,
> > > indoctrinated youths followers, the use of
> new
> > > media in crafting and controlling the
> message,
> > > etc. Electing democrat is extremely importan
> > to
> > > me, but it begins to dawn on me as well that
> > > democracy is not guaranteed and it might be
> > better
> > > to put up with McCain for four years than
> have
> > > someone who uses Hitler's spectacular
> > strategies
> > > to manufacture power and gravitas.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> > Baffled Democrat,
> > Your post hits the nail on the head, with
> many
> > truthful examples. I have also thought of
> myself
> > as a far lefter and not once have I found
> anything
> > about Obama to get excited about. I have only
> > fear.
> > My friends in Oregon who are die-hard Obama
> > fans burst blood vessels when I tell them how I
> > feel about Obama. The first time I saw a
> speech
> > by Obama, months before Rev. Wright came into
> the
> > picture, I thought he was way to preachy for my
> > taste. As things have progressed, it has only
> > gotten worse. All my liberal friends who in
> 2004
> > were exited at the prospect of McCain joining
> > Kerry now look at John McCain as though he is
> the
> > worst thing since trans-fat. I have been
> accused
> > of being a racist, even though I am othe only
> one
> > of "them" that lives in a black neighborhood
> and
> > has been around and trulu appreciates the
> african
> > american experience in the United States. I am
> > called delusional and worse because I can not
> get
> > behind a man who I have not an ounce of trust
> in
> > to lead this country to a better place.
> > His speech in Berlin, in front of all those
> > adoring white German faces, does not give me
> any
> > hope for better days to come. I am as baffled
> as
> > you are.
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> It's is baffling because my white friends who
> support Obama are all rich and grew up never
> interacting with any black people. They believe
> that the vote and passion for Obama can somehow
> redeem them from their secluded and racially
> purified lifestyles. Those of us who actually
> interact with black people on daily basis, and
> who have many black friends, who read black
> literature, understand black history, and have
> genuine respect for the culture are not taken in
> by Obama because we don't need to prove anything
> to ourselves. We can judge a black person based
> on merit because we know many black people and we
> know that they are people, and people can be
> smart, brilliant, stupid, hard working, lazy,
> funny, well-read, rude, polite. For my upper
> class, white liberal friends, Obama is the
> stereotypical 'magic negro' (think Morgan Freeman
> in any 'redeption' movie) that will absolve them
> of any guilty feelings over their priviledged
> upbringing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Baldwin,
you are so correct. Those of us who are able to judge a black candidate (or anyone) based on merit can clearly see that barack Obama does not merit our vote, The friends of mine who support Obama have barly had any interaction with black folks. And since we are on the topic of race, one thing that I find very interesting is the support Obama gets from blacks.
In my experience, someone of mixed black and white race are usually looked down upon by blacks. In Louisiana, a mixed person is known as "bright" They were never fully accepted by the blacks, and to the racist whites, they were looked upon as being black, regardless of their skin tone.
In Maryland, it was the same. Mulattos and mixed race blacks were NEVER fully accepted, and often resented by other blacks.
Many Obama supporters feel empowered when they use the racist label against those who do not support Obama. They see in him a chance to relieve themselves of their white liberal guilt by supporting a black man for president. To me, I am more black than Obama, with his Hawaiiain upbringing, his elite schools, and his fast track progression in the world. None of my black friends think I am a racist because I dont like him, only my white ones do.

A complimentary comparison of Hitler and Obama is ludicrous. Hitler spewed hatred, Obama peddles pablum.

swabian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having grown up in Hitler's Third Reich - and
> rembering his speeches - I find it most
> interesting that some democrats begin to think of
> Hitler when they describe Obama. They hit the nail
> on the head!
---------------------------------------------
As a swabian you should know better. Not everytime somebody speaks in Berlin it is "Hitler all over again". It was not so when JFK spoke, it was not so when R Reagan spoke and it is certainly not so because a democrat speaks.
And that people did not exactly applaud when the current resident of the white house spoke should not really surprise.

But if you want to see some Hitler aera similarities, here:

"...This just in from the Department of the Obvious: Scott McClellan admits to Chris Matthews that the White House made a deliberate effort to use FOX News commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly to disseminate White House talking points.
Matthews: “Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out?”

McClellan: “I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House.” […] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talkng points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.

Matthews: “So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople.”

McClellan: “Well, certainly.”

Straight from the source. Enough with the “fair and balanced” crap already..."

That is Goebbels like -at it's best. You might want to get excited about that a little if democracy means anything to you "swabian".:-)

Willie39
Obama should be paying you for your efforts. Did you not say on a different day that you were not an Obama supporter and that you actually voted for Bush? Maybe I can do a search, but Im pretty sure it was you. Someone must have spikes your kool-aide

Will someone please educate this arrogant lady ????
Sounds like one of those talking points from the White House.

Mamatx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> S Gerstner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think all this Obama is arrogant crap is
> about
> > the old fear of the uppitidy negro. On his
> trip
> > overseas Obama and his meeting with world
> leaders
> > Obama was measured in his meetings with world
> > readers and stood up for the U.S. He didn't
> > criticize President Bush or make outlandish
> > promises or statements. Americans should be
> proud
> > that we have a potential leader who viewed in a
> > positive manner overseas. Maybe if President
> Bush
> > had gone overseas and schmoozed with world
> leaders
> > he would have found less resistance and more
> > support.
>
> Another Obamabot calling all of us racists who
> refuse to support the junior senator from Illinois
> who chose to work out rather than visit wounded
> troops because he could not turn it into a
> campaign event. Obama doesn't like ice cream. I
> do. I guess that also proves I am a racist.


I wouldn't say racist, but there has been a propensity for some in the past when they see a black that is successful in traditionally white dominated fields to accuse that black of being arrogant. The way people talk its as if they expect Obama to stay quiet and just be greatful America gave him a chance to be president. In Obama I have only seen somebody supremely confident in himself which is a good thing as most presidents have a strong sense of self. To criticize him for trying to look presidential while running for the office is kind of rediculous.

Do Americans really want to participate in a personality cult for the next four, or even eight years? Who wants to be called a racist every time they disagree with a policy pronouncement from someone that TV star called "The One?"

Having run the worst Presidential Campaign in modern history, Ms. Estrich demonstrates remarkable arrogance in her continued attempts to smear Senator Obama and his campaign staff.

I had been under the obviously false impression that she was a Democrat. I guess that's not allowed over at Fox and here on RCP. Susan, enough with the sour grapes! Why don't you go to work for McCain's Campaign. That would guarantee an Obama landslide in November.

Heaven forbid a presidential candidate be confident, and carry himself as a president. Since the right doesn't like the fact that he is bold, daring, and has a backbone they spin this to make him look arrogant. Do you really think Bush the first, the goof off son of the fired boss, and Reagan weren't arrogant?

This is so typical of the right....attack, attack, attack, attack, attack every little thing, pick it apart, and question it. Obama didn't do much of anything wrong on this trip so you have call him arrogant, because well that's all you got. Oh, yea and question why he would make such a trip, when you had a ticker on the GOP website saying how many days since Obama had been to Iraq. You can't have it both ways.

Thanks for quoting and referencing that "smart" person that said they think they can't lose. It amazes me how the right tries to make Democrats sound so stupid. Do you really think for a second that professional campaigners believe that this is in the bag?

McCain just really isn't offering anything. The right tried to paint Kerry as not having any plans of offering anything, well take a look at your own candidate this time he's not giving us much.

Marcos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A complimentary comparison of Hitler and Obama is
> ludicrous. Hitler spewed hatred, Obama peddles
> pablum.


Not really. If you actually know the history of Third Reich, you would know that initially Hitler talke all about hope, change, unity and future. Those were his favorites platidutes.

Why does everyone believe the numbers provided by BO's campaign that 200,000 people showed up to hear him, when German press on the ground saw only 20,000? When it comes to BO, you should know better by now.
[www.worldpoliticsreview.com]
[patriotroom.com]

Mr. Bill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Estrogen, give it up already. HILLARY LOST. A
> Clinton will never, ever, dwell in the White House
> again. Hoping for an Obama loss will NOT bring
> Hillary back in 2012. The party's powers elite and
> machine have turned the page on the Clintons. They
> have moved on, and you should too.

The party power elite and machine better watch their backs. I predicate primary challengers and tight elections until we elect less misogynistic representatives. Casey, Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, be afraid, be very afraid.

mamtx & derek - your claim that racism is behind calling Obama arrogant is ridiculous. Name us one other presidential candidate who has done the things Obama has done -- made his own seal, put it on a plane, gone trekking around the world with network anchors at his side, dissed injured soldiers when told he couldn't bring the press with him to visit them, hogged network time to give a self-serving speech about race, asked to give a speech at the Brandenburg gate. If any previous candidate had done these things, then of course it wouldn't be fair to call out Obama for it. But, NO OTHER CANDIDATE HAS.

You people who constantly play the race card are 'crying wolf' and a whole lot of folks are getting very sick of the whole race thing. When you blur the distinction between real and imagined racism by trying to make a rich elitist out to be a victim, you hurt those people who really are victims of racism. People like me (liberals with histories of voting and acting in favor of racial harmony) are becoming increasingly disgusted with having non-racism thrown in our faces. Obama and his supporters like yourselves have created a lot of ugliness in this campaign and I fear for everyone, but especially poor African-Americans, when it all comes to fruition.

For those of you Obama supporters who actually care about having educated opinion, please, at least see History Chanel 'The Rise and Fall aof Adolf Hitler." Available at amazon.com. I am mostly concerned about the spectacular similarities in the way that they both carry themselves and create their self-image.

I'm gathering from us this discussion that Obama has had a successful trip but that he shouldn't let it go to his head as November is a long way off.
Those of us who support Obama would agree with that. We watch the polls and talking point flurries as nervously as our fellow citizens who support Senator McCain. I think folks on both sides of this thing understand that it is a contest with ups and downs. Both candidates endeavor to project a "presidential aura" which leaves both quite open to mockery when a bit of PR staging goes wrong. And that is fun too - -more fun for the Obama side this week, no doubt. But it is simply not "presumptuous" or "arrogant" for both candidates to try and help us envision them as president. They both get questioned and criticized; they both have detractors; and they both know that it does not take much to move the needle over to the other side and out of reach. I think Obama approaches the ups and downs with more calm, but I just don't read that as arrogance or overconfidence. After all, his efforts have paid off so far.

Willie39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Baffled Democrat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Marcos Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > A complimentary comparison of Hitler and
> Obama
> > is
> > > ludicrous. Hitler spewed hatred, Obama
> peddles
> > > pablum.
> >
> >
> > Not really. If you actually know the history of
> > Third Reich, you would know that initially
> Hitler
> > talke all about hope, change, unity and future.
> > Those were his favorites platidutes.
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
> If it were so, you would recite it. But you
> can't.
> There is nothing wrong with talikng about "hope,
> change, unity and future". Unless you are of the
> opinion it is only good when the GOP speaks about
> it.
>
> The people one has to be careful of here:
>
> "Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but
> after all, it is the leaders of a country who
> determine policy, and it is always a simple matter
> to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or
> a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a
> communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the
> people can always be brought to the bidding of the
> leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell
> them they are being attacked, and denounce the
> pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
> country to danger. It works the same in every
> country.”
> –Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich-Marshall, at the
> Nuremberg Trials
>
> And now you look around for the similarities.


Yes, with one exception. Nazis actually staged "Polish attack" and we did have very real 9/11 attack. Please, read about the invasion of Poland, at least on wiki: [en.wikipedia.org])

If picking Hillary as VP will guarantee a win for Obama, he will pick Hillary. That's just the way the Obama mind works. He will do anything to win. He is a Ghost Rider.

If the polls show that he is slipping, say hello to Hillary as VP.

I had to read over 20 silly bickering replies before I found someone referencing the author siting unamed sources to support her aurgument. "one if the smartest people I know" is not a source for an authentic artcle about anything other than a jr. High book report. I am surprised that two college professors and numerous spell checking typists overlooked this. Please people...spend more time evaluating the source and just maybe we may actually get some decent reporting from these guys.





tonedef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's so lame to write a critical editorial
> accusing someone of something quite grave
> (arrogance) with ZERO evidence, except an 'unnamed
> source,' and a crop of untold stories.
>
> PATHETIC! If you're going to make an allegation at
> least have some evidence to cite. RIDICULOUS. One
> person she doesn't name and a bunch of untold
> stories. We're supposed to be convinced.
>
> So he goes to Europe, gets treated like he's
> president and acts like he's president- what
> alternative do you suggest? That he's not and he
> doesn't?
>
> So stupid.

oregonagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Willie39
> Obama should be paying you for your efforts.
----------------------------------------------
They should indeed.:-)
------------------------------------------------------
> Did you not say on a different day that you were
> not an Obama supporter and that you actually voted
> for Bush? Maybe I can do a search, but Im pretty
> sure it was you.
--------------------------------------------------------
I said I was an independent. Do your research.
I am interested in the facts. That's all.
The facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Someone must have spikes your
> kool-aide
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Nazi aera Goebbels propaganda tricks of the Bush administration does that:

"Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated US law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

News of the Pentagon's online posting of the documents came from Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who notes that NSNS provided the New York Times "limited information about a military office early in the reporting process."

Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:

[www.dod.mil]

I wonder why none of the GOP supporters do not get angry about that. But then again, most Germans didn't either.

At this point in the campaign, shouldn't Obama be required to roll a list of "credits" at the end of his speeches (plagiarizing from Bono's concert introduction back in 2005 for the "Berlin Speech" as well as that political crony of his back in NJ or ILL from who he borrowed during the early primaries)? Talk about shameless.

You want to look at my posting #59.

another independent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had to read over 20 silly bickering replies
> before I found someone referencing the author
> siting unamed sources to support her aurgument.
> "one if the smartest people I know" is not a
> source for an authentic artcle about anything
> other than a jr. High book report. I am surprised
> that two college professors and numerous spell
> checking typists overlooked this. Please
> people...spend more time evaluating the source and
> just maybe we may actually get some decent
> reporting from these guys.
>
>
>
>
>
> tonedef Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's so lame to write a critical editorial
> > accusing someone of something quite grave
> > (arrogance) with ZERO evidence, except an
> 'unnamed
> > source,' and a crop of untold stories.
> >
> > PATHETIC! If you're going to make an allegation
> at
> > least have some evidence to cite. RIDICULOUS.
> One
> > person she doesn't name and a bunch of untold
> > stories. We're supposed to be convinced.
> >
> > So he goes to Europe, gets treated like he's
> > president and acts like he's president- what
> > alternative do you suggest? That he's not and
> he
> > doesn't?
> >
> > So stupid.

I supported Obama in the Democratic primary and since then he has changed. For what I gather, He now listening to the DLC, the Gore campaign and Kerry campaign. Of cause, they are all losers!!
But what really bother me is they way he treats the liberals that gave him money and support.
He basically stabbed them in the back and told them to got lose. Now, he has a trustworthy problem.
Is this a recipe for victory?
Time will tell , but it was a loser for Gore and Kerry.

Susan, you left out one thing. Dislike. The truth is that these days voting against someone or something is a stronger motivator than its converse. The Republicans lost Congress because voters rejected them, not because voters supported the Democrats. Hillary lost because of people who donated, campaigned, and voted against her, not because of support for Obama. Obama has tried to make the election a referendum on George Bush. However, now he, not Bush, has become the issue. People don't like to have the media shove a candidate down their throats. Moreover, the more we see of Obama, the more we learn about him, the more we are inclined to vote against him.

Oops sorry mamatx, I didn't mean to call you out as the 'racist' slinger ... shoulda been S. Gerstner.

Dandy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Americans Love Confidence but Hate Arrogance .
> Obama has not found where the line is .
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrogance is always and only a perception.
Sometimes even only a wanted one. Or even only an asserted one.

Always check the "who" says so, and the "why" and "what" and "where". That gives you the insights of what it's all about.

Willie recommendation for today:

"I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who..."
(Kipling)

I am with you jeremyemilio. I am really troubled by this. It does not add up and it does not fare well for the future. I am open minded but I also believe deeply in dialogue and dissent as fundamental to democratic process. Even if it means I would have to dissent against my own party.....


jeremyemilio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm loath to admit it, Baffled Democrat, but I'm
> beginning to think the concerns you raise are at
> least worth considering. I'm a liberal myself and
> I generally hate extreme rhetoric in the "this
> politician is like Hitler" vein, but there is
> something at least a little creepy going on here.
> Maybe it's just because I'm Canadian and we
> haven't had a larger than life politician since
> Trudeau; I just don't get how a senator from
> America who was a virtual unknown just four years
> ago gathers 200 people to hear him speak in a
> European nation (and the fact that it was Germany
> doesn't factor in here; that would be an example
> of the cheep hyperbolic comparison that turns me
> off). What has Obama done in the past four years
> to warrant this kind of adoration? This guy is not
> MLK or prisoner 46664. So what's the big deal? I
> still have trouble believing that Obama is a
> totalitarian in the making. Nevertheless, anyone
> who can garner this type of fervoured support from
> 50%-60% of the nation (and the world) is reason to
> give pause to the other 40%-50%. If he gains
> power, dissenting opinions and interests will seem
> to be of little consequence in the illusory shadow
> of such monolithic consent.
>
> Baffled Democrat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am a college professor, as far to the left as
> > you can imagine and what Obama is doing begins
> to
> > horrify me. If you watch any - any -
> documentary
> > on Hitler, you bound to notice frightening and
> > striking similarities between the raise of
> Hitler
> > and Obama campaing -- to say the least- : the
> lack
> > of self-irony, huge deliberately staged
> rallies,
> > fear of debates, unability to engage in
> rational
> > criticsm, reliance on charisma and rhetoric,
> > branding (logo, seal, etc), fainting women,
> > religious iconography, tighly controlled
> > messianistic self-image, hope/change/unity
> > platitudes, bildungroman autobiography,
> > indoctrinated youths followers, the use of new
> > media in crafting and controlling the message,
> > etc. Electing democrat is extremely importan
> to
> > me, but it begins to dawn on me as well that
> > democracy is not guaranteed and it might be
> better
> > to put up with McCain for four years than have
> > someone who uses Hitler's spectacular
> strategies
> > to manufacture power and gravitas.

Marcos Wrote:

"A complimentary comparison of Hitler and Obama is ludicrous. Hitler spewed hatred, Obama peddles pablum."
--------------------------------------------------
Baffled Democrat Wrote:

"Not really. If you actually know the history of Third Reich, you would know that initially Hitler talke all about hope, change, unity and future. Those were his favorites platidutes."
---------------------------------------------------

Not really, history books tell us that Hitler, from the early 1920's, "spewed hatred" of virtually everthing that was not German. True enough, he promised to improve Germany's economy, but the improvement would come as a result of punishing their enemies. Nothing positive about it.

NC for Obama:

My vote counts just as much as yours, regardless of how wide or narrow my mind is...this is still a democracy, and every citizen (who isn't a convicted felon) gets 1 vote and an opportunity to cast that vote (unless, of course you are talking about a primary caucus).

While I agree there are some deeply stupid people out there (and, yes some here) we all get to formulate our own opinion and whether you like it or not, we will vote. My vote is NO to BO; but I'm sure your able brain already figured that out.

Aristotle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marcos Wrote:
>
> "A complimentary comparison of Hitler and Obama is
> ludicrous. Hitler spewed hatred, Obama peddles
> pablum."
> -------------------------------------------------
> -
> Baffled Democrat Wrote:
>
> "Not really. If you actually know the history of
> Third Reich, you would know that initially Hitler
> talke all about hope, change, unity and future.
> Those were his favorites platidutes."
> --------------------------------------------------
> -
>
> Not really, history books tell us that Hitler,
> from the early 1920's, "spewed hatred" of
> virtually everthing that was not German. True
> enough, he promised to improve Germany's economy,
> but the improvement would come as a result of
> punishing their enemies. Nothing positive about
> it.

Yes, except his initial speeches were all about peace, love and happiness and unity of the world. Watch 'The Rise and Fall fo A. Hitler" and read a bit more scholarly books.

Doph T Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, another daily dose of anti-Obama ranting from
> Fox "News," aka the GOP shill network. Must be
> tough being stuck with having to support a
> candidate like McCain, a kept man who has never
> had a paycheck in his life that wasn't from the
> government and who is dumb enough to believe that
> an occupation can be "won." Being on the wrong
> side of so many 67%-33% issues (Iraq, abortion,
> Bush tax cuts, etc.) leaves McCain peddling
> uphill, while Obama can just coast and I suppose
> that seems to be arrogance to those stuck backing
> an ancient loser. Dizzy Dean had it right: "It
> ain't braggin' if'n you kin do it." :-)

Dolph: Other than persuading you, what exactly does the senator from Illinois have to to brag about? By the way, I am not part of any "Shill Network". I do own my own business, however, and work hard every day to make it successful and profitable. It is profitable. My employees and my family benefit from this profitability. If you wanted, you could start by asking my employees about their health coverage, their 401(k) and their profit-sharing.

The senator from Illinois will raise my taxes, thus reducing the profitability of my business, and of course, this will adversely impact my employees and my family. The math is easy. I'm sure you can follow it. And as the senator from Illinois redistributes wealth to which he was never entitled, you will likely become in some small way the beneficiary of that wealth redistribution (which you had no part in creating). My employees, my family and I wish to congratulate you in advance.

I wish that Susan Estrich was right, but arrogance, as well as racial and sexist politics were enough to win Obama the nomination over Hillary Clinton. Obamas grand sounding speeches, press adoration, good pictures, and accusations of racism kept Hillary off balance. Incredible arrogance good pictures, press adoration, and nice sounding empty speeches have been enough to give Obama a slight boost and keep McCain off balance. I'm somewhat with Susan in that I don't think the bitter, gun toting, bible thumping bigots of the American class are nearly as interested as Obama in surrendering American interest so the rest of the world will like us. Those people remember that as the Obama would say....the world liked us best on 9/12....with the two towers a smoking ruin and 3000 Americans dead. But fighting the war on those that attacked us is long and hard.....Obama is the easy route....the nice pictures....the nice speeches.....getting people to like us again.....surrender in Iraq so we don't have to look at that anymore. Obama is very alluring, and if we go with Obama...it will be a few years before we have to deal with Iraq in the hands Al Qaeda, Iran with a nuclear bomb, gasoline at $20 a gallon because he won't explore or expand nuclear power. Yep.....we may very well be headed for Jimmy Obama II.

How did we get into this Hitler shtick?

I guess it comes from the fact that Obama and Hitler are/were incredibilly charismatic, attracting hordes of hysterical followers. End of comparison: Hitler was evil, and warped with hatred; Obama, comparatively and actually, dispenses feel-good banalities.

NC for Obama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It really is childish how we have people comparing
> Obama and Hitler. Really people are you adults?
> I scoffed when comparisons were made between Bush
> and Hitler (and believe me there are plenty) and I
> scoff when nimrods try to do it to Obama. Hitler
> was one of the best politicians that ever lived.
> Take any modern day politician and you can make
> comparisons to Hitler if you REALLY want to. It's
> really very easy. That doesn't mean they are the
> second coming of Hitler, it simply means they are
> a politician.
>
> The author of this thread gave ZERO sources and
> anybody in this forum can claim they are a college
> professor, a holocaust survivor, a resident of the
> former Soviet Union. Read this with extreme
> skepticism, the same skepticism you have about
> either candidate.
>
> There are some really narrow minded people
> spouting off on this thread. I suggest you folks
> stay home in November and let us more level headed
> people decide who will be our next president.


Ha! Almost had me until that last sentence. Irony much?

SUSAN ESTRICH I thought you were a Democratic but you are just like Jamed Carville. I don't even read your articles because the titles say it all....You are a bitter @#$%&.


OBAMA '08

Why do we even give Susan Esrtich's comments any credibility at all.
When was the last time she helped anyone win an election.
She screws up a presidential campaign and she presents herself as an all knowing pundit on Fox News of all places.
Please!

jane proper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The comics who can't parody obama should try
> focussing on his stream of thinking. Rather than
> disagreeing with something he often makes a
> tangentially related positive-sounding remark.
> Bythe way, 20% of the population are said to be
> quite hypnotically suggestible (as in, suggestible
> enough for surgical anesthesia by suggestion)
-----------------------------------------------
"...Says the Times: “Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse—an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.”
In this particular meeting with Rumsfeld over calls for his resignation, the Times revealed there was “a shared determination to marginalize war critics and revive public support for the war.”

“I’m an old intel guy,” said one analyst at the meeting, according to the Times. (The transcript omits speakers’ names). “And I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. That is Psyops. Now most people may hear that and they think, ‘Oh my God, they’re trying to brainwash.’”
“What are you, some kind of a nut?” Mr. Rumsfeld interrupted, drawing laughter. “You don’t believe in the Constitution?”

The “Psyops” operation being carried out—or “information dominance,” as one Pentagon official who helped craft the program called it—can be traced at least back to 2003 and the push for an invasion of Iraq. The analysts in question would appear in the media and @#$%& the case for war—but always on the side of invasion, and always for the reasons dictated by their secret handlers at the Pentagon...."
[www.americanprogress.org]

knights-tale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Somebody explain this for me. ...
> And you're all worried about a candidate who is
> trying to shape his image?
>


"shape his image?"
you mean change who he truly is to get votes...
make you perceive him as what he is not?

I see a man who brings his little girls to a church of hate during their most tender, absorbing years. I see this man (and his wife) making this decision for either 1) votes or 2) because they believe in what their disgusting friend (quasi-uncle) Rev. Wright says and does.

I see a man who associates with murderers (i.e. terrorist bombers who chuckle at not being convicted and claiming they would do it again).

I see a man who accepts monies and business dealings with a modern day mobster (Rezko, who will be indicted soon enough). Why did Obama have these ties? For votes? Political clout? To buy what most of us cannot afford... a very expensive piece of property.

I see a man who's voting record and experience speaks for itself. It's is thin and shallow. Too many absentee voting, and too many neutral votes (i.e. coward to stand for anything of substance).

I see a man who DID NOT VOTE AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR. Only a man who would have voted for the war as the majority did given the facts at the time. Even Obama's European friends did, as Obama would have.

I see a man with no experience, no vision, no maturity, no integrity, no bravery, no leadership skills.

I see a man who has lied from day 1 of his campaign, and continues to lie, on just about every issue. These are not "flip-flops," based on new information, or the normal act of changing ones mind given moral or ethical circumstances. These are blatant lies to sway voters depending on where, geograpically he is, or who he is talking to.

I see a puppet, who's strings are being held by the media and the very un-democratic "Democratic" Party.

I see a man who decided to shape his little girls minds at an early age with racism, hate and vile acts.

I see a man with no judgment, no integrity. Only shameless acts to grab votes for power.

On second thought, this is not a man at all, but a monster.

rotten rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oregonagain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Willie39
> > Obama should be paying you for your
> efforts.
> > Did you not say on a different day that you
> were
> > not an Obama supporter and that you actually
> voted
> > for Bush? Maybe I can do a search, but Im
> pretty
> > sure it was you. Someone must have spikes your
> > kool-aide
>
>
> Where is Jim Jones when you need him. Maybe we can
> still get him on the Jonestown bus. They had
> plenty kool-aid at one time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Are you advocating getting me killed? Just because I do not support your candidate?
Doesn''t surprise me.
The Nazis were exactly the same way.

sandra Glenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm curious. Why would anyone want to say the
> following about Senator Mc Cain? "Senator Mc Cain
> can't even walk and chew gum." Senator Mc Cain
> has survived physical and mental torture while
> serving Our Country. Senator Mc Cain has served
> in the United States Senate for decades and has
> been one of the few senators to work with both
> Democrats and Republicans. And, at great
> political risk!
>
> Please think about this:
> Respect those who are older and wiser.
> Instead of putting Senator Mc Cain down for his
> age TRY honoring his life's work and knowledge
> that can only be gained through experience.
------------------------------------------
You mean the experience that torture is an acceptable form of dealing with prisoners?

McCain on Torture
BEFORE
McCain 11/16/07: "One of the things that kept us going when I was in prison in North Vietnam was that we knew that if the situation were reversed, that we would not be doing to our captors what they were doing to us"

"I want to tell you. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney all think it is O.K. They have one thing in common. They don’t understand the military and the culture of this nation. If they did, they could never condone such behavior." [NY Times]

AFTER
McCain votes against a ban on CIA torture. [NY Times]

OK, so Obama's arrogant. He's young, he's male, you name it. But to Estrich and all the Hillary die-hards-- do you really want to sell the country out to prove a point? And to all the Obama bashers who fill up the post boards (are you on assignment from the RNC?) -- we're a country divided 50/50.. Of course, the election is going to be close. And yes, Obama is not a perfect candidate. Do you really want more Republican rule? Working class people barely able to make it? Do you want to buy the Conservative values crap again, and sell your own economic well-being down the river?
I'm a solider in the Army. I can tell you there are many, many of us hoping it's Obama. We've had enough of the ridiculous chicken hawks on top of the military making their @#$%& mistakes. Let's try someone who had to pull themselves up (not marry a rich white broad) and seems like a man of integrity. Not perfect, but enough of a man of the people for me. And Susan, Hilary lost. Not because she's a woman-- she ran a crappy campaign.

It's obvious that Susan Estrich still hasn't recovered from the defeat of her friend Hillary Clinton. Get over it. bob hofler

****************************
So, if you folks are not worried about the chance of Obama losing in November, why are you all in a lather trying to neutralize Susan Estrich's advice, given to the Dems from a Dem in hopes of helping THE ONE DIMENSIONAL ONE WHO WALKS ON WATER win in November?

Seems to me you should admit that Obama tends to be, er, well "god-like" in his demeanor. This is pretty obvious (even should be to "Obvious" ;-) ). In any case, I believe that Susan was simply trying to help her candidtate.........

Seems we have Obama lovers and Obama haters without a whole lot of objectivity in between. If Obama is arrogant, what is McCain? I think anyone who runs for president has to have an ego that borders on arrogance. Certainly McCain has exhibited this by accusing Obama of something bordering on treason for his stance on the Iraq war. And yes, I'd say there's a certain level of arrogance required to strut on world stage with foreign dignitaries, which Obama did last week. At the same time, I think most Americans are ready for a president who is respected, admired, even loved abroad. It would be a welcome change from GW Bush.

voiceofreason2008 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems we have Obama lovers and Obama haters
> without a whole lot of objectivity in between. If
> Obama is arrogant, what is McCain? I think anyone
> who runs for president has to have an ego that
> borders on arrogance. Certainly McCain has
> exhibited this by accusing Obama of something
> bordering on treason for his stance on the Iraq
> war. And yes, I'd say there's a certain level of
> arrogance required to strut on world stage with
> foreign dignitaries, which Obama did last week.
> At the same time, I think most Americans are ready
> for a president who is respected, admired, even
> loved abroad. It would be a welcome change from
> GW Bush.

Ego, sure.
Arrogance, no way.

Baffled Democrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a college professor, as far to the left as
> you can imagine and what Obama is doing begins to
> horrify me. If you watch any - any - documentary
> on Hitler, you bound to notice frightening and
> striking similarities between the raise of Hitler
> and Obama campaing -- to say the least- : the lack
> of self-irony, huge deliberately staged rallies,
> fear of debates, unability to engage in rational
> criticsm, reliance on charisma and rhetoric,
> branding (logo, seal, etc), fainting women,
> religious iconography, tighly controlled
> messianistic self-image, hope/change/unity
> platitudes, bildungroman autobiography,
> indoctrinated youths followers, the use of new
> media in crafting and controlling the message,
> etc. Electing democrat is extremely importan to
> me, but it begins to dawn on me as well that
> democracy is not guaranteed and it might be better
> to put up with McCain for four years than have
> someone who uses Hitler's spectacular strategies
> to manufacture power and gravitas.


You are so correct. It is a sad state when people start hiding their guns because they are frightened of what Obama will do if he gets elected. Remember one of the first things Hitler did when he took over was enact strict gun control laws "for the safety of the people"... oh and when he started carting off people to murder it was handy that they had no weapons to defend themselves. I voting for the person I think will protect the Constitution of the United States. The one who served this country proudly and who gave up more for this country than I ever did.

rotten rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh grow up why don't you. Ever hear of Dark
> Humor???? Grandpa was right, never argue with a
> fool.
-------------------------------------------
Ahh, now it is dark humor. Of course.
You got the right flexibility too -when called on it. The 'just kidding' type.
And the 'not understander' has to be the fool. Of course, I understand how it works. The modus operandi is always the same.:-)))

BillyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *********************
> Jeez, there are both the executive branch and the
> legislative branches of our government.
> You know, checks and balances.
>
> Since the legislative branchis Dem controlled and
> has much lower approval ratings that Bush, why are
> you all not out screaming about them equally for
> this "fix" you all say we are in?
>
> If we are going to throw out the Reps from the
> White House, why not throw the Dems out of
> Congress?
> If the argument is valid for Bush, then........
>
>
> ....oh,..........yeah...........forgot its OK if
> its the Dems doing it.............
------------------------------------------------------
The differenc ein disapproval ratings is easy to explain:
There is only one Republican in the White House......:-))

I dont know Susan, in my mind its the democracts who are more enamoured with "controll". You should be seeing that by now.

Republicans think you individuals should retain the means to solve their own problems.

Willie39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BillyC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > *********************
> > Jeez, there are both the executive branch and
> the
> > legislative branches of our government.
> > You know, checks and balances.
> >
> > Since the legislative branchis Dem controlled
> and
> > has much lower approval ratings that Bush, why
> are
> > you all not out screaming about them equally
> for
> > this "fix" you all say we are in?
> >
> > If we are going to throw out the Reps from the
> > White House, why not throw the Dems out of
> > Congress?
> > If the argument is valid for Bush, then........
> >
> >
> > ....oh,..........yeah...........forgot its OK
> if
> > its the Dems doing it.............
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> The differenc ein disapproval ratings is easy to
> explain:
> There is only one Republican in the White
> House......:-))

Darn, and all this time I thought approval ratings had to do with approval or diapproval of performance (or lack thereof).

I have been overwhelmed by this magnificent article ,which undoubtedly will help tremendously the last 2 candidates : The one who follows the least S.Estrich 's advises will be a sure winner!

Obama and the New World Order - might win with the press in his pocket and the radical - ACORN group registering voters. As you may know, ACORN is not meticulous in their voter registration as evidenced by their Fed indictments for the 06 elections. But hey--its the Chicago way!

Jay Georges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Susan, you are one of people who want to see Obama
> as an arrogant person, and yet never give any
> concret fact to backup the accusation. I have not
> found in this article any item supporting the
> premise (arrogance) of your article. Therefore,
> the arrogance theorits remind me those who during
> thhe primary sworn that Obama will not carry
> Hispanic votes because Hispanics and Blacks don't
> like each other. At this point at least, though
> things can change, he wins among Hispanics 3 to 1
> That Pensylvenia will be out of his column because
> he is elitist, yet at this point he leads your
> McCain there.
> In fact the theory of Obama's arrogance started
> when he announced his candidacy. The pundits'
> wisdom then was that he lacks experience to run
> for the highest office. The so called pundits
> concluded that he runs because he is presumptuous.
> All these disparaging adjective did not prevent
> him from beating 30-year old electoral machine.
> It is just sad that the so called pundits
> presumptuously believe they can guide the thinking
> process of Americains by making them believe what
> they want them to believe. If pundits were often
> right, the democratic primary would have ended on
> super Tuesday; Obama would never have been the
> democratic nominee; the candidate of Hannity and
> Limbaugh, Romney would have been the republican
> nominee. Thus, I will ask you to shut up and watch
> history evolve.
___________________________________________________________
Mr. George

May I point out that your response makes no sense. You start with a premise, next is the body or argument for your stance and then end with your conclusion. Maybe it is you who needs to shut up and watch history evolve. It is very apparent that you do not no how to write must be that inner city education.

What candidate doesn't think they can't win ?

Being confident in your strategy and policies and the support you can obtain is not arrogance. Do we want a leader who isn't confident in his ability to lead people ? Would it make everyone happier if Obama acted like he had no chance of winning and walked around mooping and crying all day ?


It's amazing how one word "arrogance" can be misused like this to try to hurt a politican. Being confident is not arrogance, we need strong confident leaders. Not leaders who aren't sure in the direction they want to lead us.

To all posting:

Leaving personal issues and emotional attacks aside, let's look at the facts:

1) On taxes. Obama wants to raise taxes. And its not just those making over $250K per year, its everyone. He wants to raise payroll taxes, corporate taxes, social security taxes as well as capital gains taxes. So even those making less than $250K will be paying more through the SS and FICA taxes on their payroll. You won't see it on your W2 because it comes out every week from your salary. If you own any stock at all and want to sell some to buy that new car - you will be paying more irrespective of your income level.

2) On foreign policy. Obama has absolutely no foreign policy experience whatsoever. There is no record - nothing to be found. We are still a nation that has to worry about terrorist attacks - having this guy at the helm does not make me feel more secure. You all should consider this as a factor. McCain is much more qualified in this respect and even liberal Democrats agree by a 2-to-1 margin that he would make a better commander-in-chief.

3) On sacrifice and bi-partison accomplishment. Obama has never done anything of real significance for his country. He was an unsuccessful community organizer. Look into it. He didn't accomplish anything. So even if you hate McCain - when you compare what these two have done side-by-side, its a no-brainer. Name one real sacrifice Obama has made on behalf of this country? Name a truly significant bi-partisan bill he passed in his first term. I can name at least 10 for McCain.

4) On Energy. Of course we should drill. Duh!! We use 20M barrels of oil every day. That's 20M*365 days = 7B barrels per year. Multiply that by ~$100 per barrel, that about $700B per year - more than 5x the Iraq war!! And that is what we send EVERY year to countries that don't like us. If we started to drill today under McCain's plan, we would start to see oil in 3 years. Just imagine how many people we could employ right here in the US with this kind of revenue that we keep? In 10 years we could become the world's largest exporter. That will reduce our trade deficit, provide more jobs, lower gas prices, etc. It really is the economic panacea.

5) On Trust. This one is more personal instead of factual so give me this one. Who do you trust more as a person? Who would you consider to be more honorable, have more integrity? More character under difficult times? McCain doesn't dazzle me with his speeches to say the least, but what he says I can believe in. When I listen to Obama - I constantly feel like this guy is a snake-oil salesman.

Love Obama or hate McCain. If you think analytically, there is no logical reason to vote for Obama.

Sorry, the kiddie way is just look at Nancy Pelosi's vitriol towards Bush. Obviuosly, Bush isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Nevertheless, the dem led congress has pushed ideology uber facts at ALL costs.

Willie39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BillyC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Willie39 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > BillyC Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > *********************
> > > > Jeez, there are both the executive branch
> and
> > > the
> > > > legislative branches of our government.
> > > > You know, checks and balances.
> > > >
> > > > Since the legislative branchis Dem
> > controlled
> > > and
> > > > has much lower approval ratings that Bush,
> > why
> > > are
> > > > you all not out screaming about them
> equally
> > > for
> > > > this "fix" you all say we are in?
> > > >
> > > > If we are going to throw out the Reps from
> > the
> > > > White House, why not throw the Dems out of
> > > > Congress?
> > > > If the argument is valid for Bush,
> > then........
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ....oh,..........yeah...........forgot its
> OK
> > > if
> > > > its the Dems doing it.............
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > ----
> > > The differenc ein disapproval ratings is easy
> > to
> > > explain:
> > > There is only one Republican in the White
> > > House......:-))
> >
> > Darn, and all this time I thought approval
> ratings
> > had to do with approval or diapproval of
> > performance (or lack thereof).
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---
> I almost expected it that you would not get it.
> OK. So, let's do it the little kiddie way: Take
> the number of Republican members and look at their
> combined performance.
> There you have the reason for the low approval
> ratings.:-)

Johhny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To all posting:
>
> Leaving personal issues and emotional attacks
> aside, let's look at the facts:
>
> 1) On taxes. Obama wants to raise taxes. And its
> not just those making over $250K per year, its
> everyone. He wants to raise payroll taxes,
> corporate taxes, social security taxes as well as
> capital gains taxes. So even those making less
> than $250K will be paying more through the SS and
> FICA taxes on their payroll. You won't see it on
> your W2 because it comes out every week from your
> salary. If you own any stock at all and want to
> sell some to buy that new car - you will be paying
> more irrespective of your income level.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567

Aidan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry, the kiddie way is just look at Nancy
> Pelosi's vitriol towards Bush. Obviuosly, Bush
> isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> Nevertheless, the dem led congress has pushed
> ideology uber facts at ALL costs.
------------------------------------------------------------
If that was the case, they would have started impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and put Rove in jail.

South side Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dimwitted Republicans make it very difficult to
> have an open and honest exchange of ideas.

Thinks South and Willie may be related.
;-)

BillyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....from the tone of the response, sees that
> Willie39 is cut from the same bolt of cloth as his
> hero, Obama. Now I understand the affinity.
> Perhaps Estrich can help you also.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know nothing about who my hero is. And regarding Susan's view, you may read my posting #59.
If you can undertsand and comprehend it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> From my "kiddie" point of view, the Congress is
> clearly Dem CONTROLLED (you know, they are in the
> majority). If Congress screws it up, it the Dems
> that allowed it to happen. To spin it to the low
> ratings are because there are minority Republicans
> still on board, is, um, well...........not a
> supportable spin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your kiddie point of view probably precludes an awareness and implications of "lack of veto override majority".
And the workings of an ever White House subserviant large minority which is aware of it.

QUOTE
If the tables were turned and she were the nominee and he were a very close second, do you think she would consider anyone but obama as a running mate? Of course not, since African Americans would be protesting in the streets. Yet Obama shows his arrogance once again, as well as his insenstivity to women, by "dissing" Hillary and all the women who have supported her. That arrogance could prove to be his fatal flaw!
END QUOTE

First and foremost, it is nobody's business who a nominee chooses for his or her running mate. At this time, it is Obama's choice to choose whomsoever he wills.
Secondly, it was Hillary who disqualified herself from being picked as VP by saying Obama was unfit to be president. She even went as far as endorsing McSame! She played the race card, and talked about assassination! If Obama picks her after all these, it will be clear proof that he is not as smart he projects.
Thirdly, no one can say for sure that Hillary would have picked Obama, or that if she did it would be because she likes him, and wants to help him. It will most likely be because she considers him essential to her victory at the polls. Hillary does not bring any real advantage to Obama. She has lots of baggage and she is likely to energize the republican base. Her absence on the ballot is actually a blessing in disguise.
Lastly, it is dishonest to blame Obama for Hillary's loss. That woman threw everything in the kitchen at Obama---probably the whole house. Throughout the primaries Obama kept his cool, and fought with admirable restraint. At the end, Hillary lost. No amount of spinning can change that.

"It is fortunate for rulers that people do not think."
-- Adolph Hitler

Willie39 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BillyC Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ....from the tone of the response, sees that
> > Willie39 is cut from the same bolt of cloth as
> his
> > hero, Obama. Now I understand the affinity.
> > Perhaps Estrich can help you also.
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------
> You know nothing about who my hero is. And
> regarding Susan's view, you may read my posting
> #59.
> If you can undertsand and comprehend it.
> --------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------->
> > From my "kiddie" point of view, the Congress is
> > clearly Dem CONTROLLED (you know, they are in
> the
> > majority). If Congress screws it up, it the
> Dems
> > that allowed it to happen. To spin it to the
> low
> > ratings are because there are minority
> Republicans
> > still on board, is, um, well...........not a
> > supportable spin.
> --------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------
> Your kiddie point of view probably precludes an
> awareness and implications of "lack of veto
> override majority".
> And the workings of an ever White House
> subserviant large minority which is aware of it.

In a text book sort of way, you have a kind of minor point.

Still, any Congress with any starch in its shorts would send up a bill (if they thought they were right) for a vote and go ahead and let the president veto it.
How many times has the Dem congress done this on anything significant?

Can't wait for the next try............

BillyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ed Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Scrolling though this blog, it is amazing how
> > ridiculous people go in over-analyzing the
> dangers
> > of electing Obama. Certainly we have a number
> of
> > people who don't support him for perfectly
> > legitimate reasons, but those who go overboard
> are
> > beginning to make quite a collection of
> > odd-balls.
> >
> > There are, of course, hard core conservatives
> who
> > see the double dose of a "liberal" and a
> > brown-skinned man.
> >
> > It's hard to say how many consciously or
> > unconsciously still have racial issues, but it
> has
> > to be a healthy chunk of those who hate Obama
> (and
> > his even darker skinned wife). The more
> > interesting group are those who unconsciously
> > think a "black" man is unsuitable to be POTUS,
> but
> > can't really admit it. Probably, they protest
> the
> > loudest that skin pigment has nothing to do
> with
> > it.
> >
> > It will be interesting to try to analyze the
> skin
> > pigment factor AFTER the election. If Obama
> wins,
> > people might be more honest about why they
> didn't
> > vote for him, assuming they find out it isn't
> any
> > different whether the POTUS is brown-skinned or
> > lighter skinned.
> >
> > But forget about his skin pigment. The
> greater
> > number of people who won't vote for him are not
> > racists, at least I like to think not.
> >
> > The Hitler comparisons on this thread are
> > something fairly new. A so-called liberal
> > professor, and some conservative bull-dogs now
> > want to push a comparison between Obama and
> > Hitler! Will this be the next chapter, after
> the
> > failures of the Wright black liberation
> theology
> > scare, the "weather underground" Bill Ayers
> scare,
> > or the "secret Muslim" scare? Will "The
> Audacity
> > of Hope" be morphed into "The Audacity of my
> > struggle" by the conservative kooks?
> >
> > How would our grand little patriots who always
> > vote republican take to people finding
> comparisons
> > between McCain and Hitler? It would be just as
> > sensible to do so.
> >
> > No one knows what kind of POTUS either Obama or
> > McCain would make, but it will be a milestone if
> a
> > majority of Americans can overlook the usual
> ugly
> > smears from the dark side of the conservative
> > kingdom and elect Obama based on who he is and
> on
> > what he has actually done and said.
>
> Agrees w. Ed.
> Would like to see a list of significant things
> Obama has actually done.

I agree with BillyC. Please ... Please Obama supporters, compile a list of qualifications and accomplishments that qualify Barack Obama to President of the United States. I am waiting.

Baffled Democrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a college professor, as far to the left as
> you can imagine and what Obama is doing begins to
> horrify me. If you watch any - any - documentary
> on Hitler, you bound to notice frightening and
> striking similarities between the raise of Hitler
> and Obama campaing -- to say the least- : the lack
> of self-irony, huge deliberately staged rallies,
> fear of debates, unability to engage in rational
> criticsm, reliance on charisma and rhetoric,
> branding (logo, seal, etc), fainting women,
> religious iconography, tighly controlled
> messianistic self-image, hope/change/unity
> platitudes, bildungroman autobiography,
> indoctrinated youths followers, the use of new
> media in crafting and controlling the message,
> etc. Electing democrat is extremely importan to
> me, but it begins to dawn on me as well that
> democracy is not guaranteed and it might be better
> to put up with McCain for four years than have
> someone who uses Hitler's spectacular strategies
> to manufacture power and gravitas.
_______________________________________________________________
Dear Baffled,
I understand how we are feeling. We do not need to be as concerned about McCain as much as we would think. The results were released today showing that Bushes tax cuts have helped more than hurt as reflected here. [ncpa.org] If Obama is elected we will be bankrupt in 2 years, and many we be unemployed because all small businesses will be taxed out of existance and big business will move overseas where taxes are lower. It seems as if Obama is trying to bring down America from the looks so his policies. I just do not undertand why he would want to do that, unless he wants a World government.

Susan Estrich is worse than a user car saleswoman. 'It may rain tomorrow. It may not. The sun may shine tomorrow. It may not.' But, no matter what happens tomorrow, count on Faux News to be the propaganda wing of the GOP, to blame Obama and the Democrats and to not blame Bush or any of the conservatives for anything that has happened in the country over the past 7+ years.