Matt, I’m an admirer of yours, but I like Obama better.

What exactly are you looking for in a candidate, anyway?

You know, regardless of who wins the party nomination, chances are the same group of advisors and cheifs of staff are going to run the country. I say vote for the most interesting candidate, because at least they are fun to listen to and talk about.

This article didn’t even say anything…what a waste of time.

Actually, it was a left handed endorsement of Barak Obama, “I hate them all, but the one I hate the least is Barak Obama.”

What does “Harvard-crafted moral nuetrality” mean?

Does Harvard offer a MA in Moderation?

Obama has made his stance clear from before he ran for a national office. He believes in thoroughly researching his topics, applying thoughtful consideration and pragmatic action.

Matt, so you are basically saying that you don’t know where Obama stands on anything except the war (and not really that issue either), yet he is your candidate. He is nothing, yet he is everything…because he has charisma and a diverse background. He is essentially the personification of relativism, which when assigned a moral value is quite dangerous, whether you are liberal or conservative. Eloquence aside, is he truly different from Bush in relaying messages shaded in emptiness?

This is all a game anyway, he is at best Hillary’s VP at this point in his career. She takes him in after it is apparent he cannot win…she is portrayed by you and others as being a unifier and goes on to loss, opening the door for an more experienced Obama is 2012.

Matt’s got it right on the head. I was afraid that this election might actually run the entirety without somebody crossing the godforsaken minority taboo line and calling the Obabma show “Bullshit 2008.”

Look, I admire Obama. I read his books, I believe he has the best intentions in the long term, hell he even excites me sometimes. But I also couldn’t help but feel that I was being worked by the best salesman in the room when every point he makes in his books takes a subtle jab at the weaknesses of his opponents, without blantantly saying so. He is for everything that is hot right NOW, and he is against everything that the hated Hawks are pushing. Good equation. But what does HE really believe? Like Matt, I dunnno.

But he will make it one hell of a show. I’ve got to admit I enjoy watching the lefties fight for my vote in the most uncomfortable position in history. Just how the hell do you attack Obama? Experience? Just what does that mean to me?? Most of the “experience” these guys pick up in Congress is how to screw me and every other Joe Public over, deciding which Pork Barrel to fill. Perhaps ‘Bama’s blessed lack of time is an asset, not a liability.

You can’t attack his morals, his record, or his general intelligence. All of which were pretty much open game against any politico up to this point. And he gets a 5 mile head start just for being a minority. You have to like the odds.

But here’s the thing – experience DOES matter. Because it breeds alliances, chops, and courage to go against the grain when the game is on the line. Which is probably the only reason I won’t vote for him. Put another 8 years on this guy, and I would send him off to Bill Clinton training school in a second.

So, who do you choose? Edwards is the biggest car salesman flop this side of the Mason Dixon. Hillary will win at this point, (and I would have crowned Bill kind if I had the chance) but somehow she seems to grind at even her so called biggest supporters. McCain may get her with the retiree/conservative crowd in the general election.

So who????

I like big Al Gore to ride the Inconvenient Train and pull off one of the most strategic 9th inning grabs of all time. How sweet would it be – say, around June/July if the Green Giant raised his hand brought his internet millions with him. If that were the case….who would you rather see as your leader than the greatest comeback kid since another southern born ah shucks bowl of steam???

And what a ticket:

Gore/Obabma 2008.

why not?

If Senator Obama gets nominated and the Democrats run a national campaign Senator Obama would have a better chance of winning than Senator Kerry had or Senator Clinton could have.

Ah, I saw the Obama show back in 1992. Only then it was called the Bill Clinton presidential campaign. Thank God, that’s just what the country needs. Another slick Democratic centrist who’ll cave in to the right so fast it’ll make your head spin.

Seriously. He doesn’t have a prayer of winning but Dennis Kucinich would make a heckuva more interesting president.

What about Obama as the “black who’s not too black”? He is HALF black with no slavery baggage. Other journalists have pointed to this to explain why so many guilt-ridden white liberals are about to wet their pants with excitement over Obama, their first “black” president and chance at assuaging the nation’s collective conscience over its shameful history.

The people who comment on article like this always find something wrong with him and most of the other candidates. They are like window shoppers who feel most comfortable going home empty-handed. And then complain they couldn’t find what they wanted. Welcome to the consumer society goes shopping for a President. No urgency. That’s how we got Shrub.

You are one negative dude. As several posts request, your next column should describe your fantasy candidate- and how he/she would get elected. There is no such person that would meet your standards and win! He has to take on the tough, aggressive, entrenched and experienced Clinton camp and then get 60 million votes in the general in a deeply divided country. He’s smart, charismatic, left of center, willing to listen to and work with those who disagree with him, willing to admit mistakes AND historic.

The real possibility of him actually pulling this off- overtaking the generationally spent HRC (and Bill) and then beating the right wing hate machine is why we are so excited. Need more?: read the October, 2002 “dumb wars” speech again.

The bottom line is send your $2,300 and vote for him, no matter what your reason.

Aside from the foul language, he may be right. Have we lost our ability to articulate without four letters words?

Verne Arnold,
Thailand

thanks for this article. it was fun to read. i like obama. he seems like a black JFK to me. JFK was inexperienced, but he won anyway. i think obama can win as long as he commits no mega mistakes in his campaign. also, he needs to gather lots of really wise people around him, not just expert political manipulators. his charisma, like kennedy’s and reagan’s, gives him a chance to do important things by pulling the american people together to achieve goals we all have incommon. let’s hope he doesn’t squander his chance for greatness like bill clinton did.

Totally agree, Matt. I’m still wondering why people loved the 2004 Convention speech so much. To me it sounded 100% ordinary. At the moment, I’m leaning toward Edwards. He wants to end the war; he has a concrete, realistic health care plan (for us, I mean, not himself); he knows poverty; and he’s from the South, which ups his chances in the general election.

Wow, if your delivery is as impressive and perceptive as your wordsmithing, you should be his vp. I may subscribe to the magazine to ensure I can read your articles.

I found this genuinely amusing and informative. I agree with Verne about the four-letter words not being necessary, but that’s just my opinion. I’ve become quite cynical of the big political arena in the last few years. I generally agree that lack of experience tends to be a bad thing but on the other hand, what other way is there to break out of the political “box” of the beltway? At this point, I’m not convinced to vote for Obama, but I don’t see anyone else interesting, either, on either side.

Doesn’t say much for a candidate who can so little of substance that his claim to the thrown is that “he pissed off the right people”……aren’t we back to the candidate of the lesser evils? Why can’t we be excited about every facet of someone. I think I too am awaiting the re-emergence of Al Gore.

Could it be the reason Matt is so impressed with Obama is not that Obama is a master wordsmith, but that Obama actually believes everything he is saying? Pessimism has grown by leaps and bounds in this country and for good reason. However, we may want to step back for a second.

It is rare in our political past to hear honest words of political conviction and untainted love of country. Obama definitely speaks it, but the power to his truth is that he is making others believe it as well. When a leader has that type of sway, true changes have always been possible. That is the sign of a great leader, not simply suggesting changes (as they all do), but inspiring others to enact it.

Wish that I could agree with you, but I can’t. I’m of the generation which still believes that there is something better than the cynicism of today and the polarized rhetoric. If Obama, who has impressed the heck out of me, is a supporter of the “Third Way” that was the foundation of the Clinton presidency (at the beginning) and the Blair PM, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with a candidate really meaning that he wants to find common ground, rather than fostering what divides us? Polarity is what we have had for the last 12 years (the last 6 years of Clinton and the first 6 of Shrub – Molly Ivens, we miss you). We rue Bill Clinton because he spent 6 years having to defend himself and was thus a largely empty president, and little Bush has used 6 years of Republican domination to push a radical agenda and tell everyone who did not agree with him that they were not patriotic (basically, we had Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the White House). There is nothing wrong with a candidate who espouses positive, general messages. If you want to find fault with his voting record in Washington or in Springfield, by all means, go for it, for then maybe there would be something of substance to discuss. But please: put your cynicism on the shelf and allow for the possibility that there is something better than the current crop of Democratic candidates, all looking like the same thing all over again.

Maybe Al Gore today would be better than Al Gore was in 2000, but we all remember that he could not even win in his home state (which, had he done so, would have obviated the entire issue of Florida). The fact that he’s become passionate about climate change, and made a good case for the need to make systemic societal changes, doesn’t make him an effective candidate.

Ed and Bryan –

I think what Matt is trying to explain is that Obama isn’t saying anything. He’s reciting tired cliches about hope and family, but doing it in an entertaining fashion. The “third way” Matt speaks of is one of innaction. It’s not about finding common ground, it’s doing absolutely nothing so that you piss off as few people as possible. But that’s not leadership.

If Obama is truly different and truly a revolutionary candidate, then he should be addressing policy changes that will drag this country out of the amoral and ineffectual hole it’s in.

Wow, this piece smacks of wounded skepticism and trust issues for each and every candidate. Gandhi could be running for office and you’d miss the deeper level of his commitment, leadership, and vision. Are you sure you don’t want to take time off and smell the roses? Obama possibly is a profoundly talented leader, and it’s been so long, and you are so on guard, you don’t recognize the signs.

young blood, new broom, all that. plus, nothing to lose, we seem lost anyway.
why go for the same tired old politicos, and get the same old tired results-and worse (see Bush).
I’m for the new kid on the block, he might make politics work for us once more.

Obama/Gore sounds like a promising team. Not only do we get the new policy of Obama, but Gore provides experience as well as heightened publicity with his recent film making. I would be in total support.

Thanks Matt, for giving us all one more reason to be cynical about everything. It must take a lot of energy to go through the day with no positive energy about anything ever. Your words really improve the world.

The people defending Obama and criticizing the author for being too cynical, etc., have not addressed the central point in the article. That Obama stands for nothing and takes a position on nothing, save a vaguely ambigous anti-war stance. This is not “considering the issues” or whatever other terrible excuse y’all are offering. Politics is supposed to be about, you know, issues, and proposals, and whatnot. Drool all over yourselves at what a smooth talker Obama is, but let’s not pretend the man is anything more concerte than a gifted rhetorician – because he isn’t. In a way it’s silly to argue because there’s nothing to argue *over*. There’s just.. nothing.

“If Obama is truly different and truly a revolutionary candidate, then he should be addressing policy changes that will drag this country out of the amoral and ineffectual hole it’s in.”

So you mean he should become the next Ralph Nader? Yeah, the U.S. electorate filled with jelly donut eating, TV addicted, xenophobic, passionately ignorant, blood thirsty, automatons of consumption sure is ready to hear some truth about the direction the country is heading and the vile tasting medicines needed to change coarse. There will be no revolution until those who need to revolt become aware of the situation. Hence, there will be no revolution.

In the end our choice is to vote for a stuffed suit or yield the Presidency to a Repigliecon who the average Joe would rather have a beer with because the Repigliecon’s message of hate is much easier to deliver with sincerity. Obama ’08.

First time I am having a look at this site, and I have to say that this Taibbi guy is a funny, sharp and enjoyable writer. When I see a dem candidate I always think of what my father would say. The old man was a plumber and a union leader, and a refugee from the English class system. I know he would wonder if Obama has one good sharp thing to say beyond the bromides.

I voted for Obama before and I will again. As Romney’s and McCain’s ever-changing social policies are showing, policy is something that expands and contracts. I’m looking for a change of STYLE.

Hillary is currently bragging that she’s the candidate that the other side fears, can’t bring herself to say “mistake” – not unlike the current occupier of the White House, and invokes names from the past like Gingrich and DeLay.

I want a candidate who looks forward rather than backward, can admit to foibles and mistakes like the rest of us, and who doesn’t just SAY he’s a “yoo-nigh-ter and not a divider” but works to show it.

And let’s not forget: it was the “experienced” people who voted *for* the war – proving once again that experience is not always partnered with common sense.

I don’t understand how anyone actually following Obama can honestly say he ’stands for nothing’ or doesnt take stances on issues. Do some goddamn research and stop expecting this info to be spoonfed to you, cuz yr just relying on fox news-inspired ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire’ bullshit about how he hasn’t done anything.

He actively opposed the war in 2002. He didn’t just ‘not vote for it.’ He has actually DONE things in his career in politics, and if you did some research you would see he stands for some very concrete ideas and beliefs.

I mean seriously, Obama represents the middle of the middle of the middle??? No, Obama represents practical approaches, looking for common ground and a repudiation of divisive politics. Yeah, he goes to the middle – in RHETORIC. As far as his own stances, he is further to the left that Hillary, nearly as left-leaning as Feingold

The difference, at least as I see it, is that Obama is sincere, whereas Hillary and Edwards are playing politics to the max.

Nearly forty years I voted a straight Democratic ticket, but after 2004 I changed my registration to Green. Not that I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat again, but (just like anyone else) they will have to make their case with me–it won’t be automatic. Yes, Obama is a captivating speaker–he makes me think of FDR. But I want someone who will take a position. Let’s just consider one single item–Obama says he opposes the war in (or “on,” if you prefer) Iraq; not only that, he had the temerity to say on one of those TV talk shows the other day that he was the *only* current Democratic canditate who opposes it. Well, he has voted to fund the war every chance he has had, and the Supreme Court has said that if the Preznit starts a war and the Congress funds it, that shows their approval; it’s just the same as voting a declaration of war. So he says he’s against it in a big way, but acts just as our Dear Leader desires. No, Obama isn’t really agains it, and Dennis Kucinich *is* really against it. Dennis doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell, basically because he isn’t a fresh face and as a Representative has too small a political base to run for President. Surely Obama has some substance, but it seems well concealed, and “trust me” doesn’t cut it. Well, we will see who the Dems nominate this time. They haven’t run anyone I truly wanted to vote for since 1984, and I expect they will not change their ways now. But I am willing to be surprised.

How about Obama/Kucinich 08? Then we would have two intelligent, articulate, public servants in the WH.

If Gore throws his hat in the ring, which I sincerely hope he will, the dynamic of the race will change completely. It will throw everyone else out of contention. Then Al can pick Obama as his running mate and win in ‘08. What vindication! Just the thought of it makes me want to dance!

Ceci, were you in Charlie and the chocolate factory? I think you just stumbled upon a golden ticket! I’ve already anointed Rudolph Giuliani as the next president but if your ticket is more then a pipe dream this red stater red neck could actually defect just like I did for Ross Perot.

now there’s a name from the past that should have been… ‘hear that sucking sound?’

Wow, Matt reminds me in short order that all is takes to be a Political commentator is an inferiority complex and a laptop.

I am looking forward to casting my vote for Barack in my February caucus and again in November of ‘08. I look forward to seeing Matt’s position shift over the campaign…or maybe not.

Obama doesn’t stand a chance against the GOP. He may very well pull off the Democratic Nomination, minus a Gore presence,
but he’ll get eaten alive by the likes of a national party that has become known in the past eight years for getting things done, no matter what, and at our expense.(Democratic majority election has so far proved to be worthless) As for Matt being a pessimist, these are dark times for anybody with half a brain to realize we shouldn’t take a ‘politician’, regardless of his verbal abilities, with nothing less than a grain of salt until this politician can stand on something other than rhetoric.

After six long years of an extremist(Bush) who is rapidly slamming our Country with a Fascist agenda, in direct contrast, Obama, Edwards, Gore and, Clark look very appealing.

The Sharp/Dangerous lurch to the Right, has put our Country in a Backwards and Perilous Path.

The Country has been hijacked and we need candidates with great intellect and the ability to put forward “The Inconvenient Truth” and still appeal to the majority of Americans.(That eliminates any of the Republicans who are so cowardly, they ride the shabby Bush coattails and sell-out their political beliefs to get a chance for the Golden Republican Presidential Ring).

Obama has the delivery, the savvy, the charisma and *the Intelligence* to present the situation and, Include the concerns and Goals of the Majority…

The Monster administration we are being manipulated by now, works, solely, for a Fascist Corporate(Oil is certainly pulling their strings)and is concerned over Personal Profit/Power/Control–at any price!

Any of the Democratic candidates have more integrity, credibility, goals for the country that would better anything the Independent(Nader, a joke) or Repubes have to offer.

How nice for the Republicans to fund Mr. Nader, again, for the ‘08 campaign…It must be love…$$$$$$$$$$$

As far as I’m concerned, Hillary, Obama, Edwards et al. are just running for Vice President. I think I like Obama for the job.

But the only person I actually like for the top spot is the guy we already elected.

If you guys want to vote for Obama then good for you. But please stop painting this guy as a Center of Left Candidate. His voting record is lockstep with the Left. He’s for Gun Control, Universal Healthcare, and he’s Pro-Choice.

That’s fine. That is his decision and many people agree with those views. Just be honest and call him what he is. He’s a Left Wing Liberal.

I personally don’t agree with those views, and I will have my chance to voice my opinion in Nov 08. But the media needs to quit painting an incorrect picture of this guy to help him gain votes.

True. And the media has gone overboard (don’t tell me they can’t effect an election or public views, because they can). However it’s still refreshing to hear someone not entirely motivated by political power and has real hopes for the future. I don’t like a lot of his views, but like him as person quite a bit (which is rare for a politician).

What is funny is that his so-called base of far left wingers are very different from him. Where Obama tries to be open minded and less partisan, his “base” spews more hate-filled, agenda motivated crap than anyone. That’s very strange to me.

I think you just made the point why the extremists on either side are not his ‘base’. He’s a centrist, logical speaker of truth. Which means he’s unlike any of the career politicians vying for power at the moment.

Hallzee,

Are you sure you are talking about Obama or Rudy G in NY? Rudy has the same views. If you look up the statistics majority of the USA are left wing liberals.

So keep in mind that Rudy G will more than likely be your nominee for the Rebulicans in 08, therefore their still might be some good in you young skywalker. We will pray for you

He lost my vote the second he started talking about universal healthcare. Start paying doctors 50K a year and see what kind of doctors you start producing. Here is a hint….bad ones. Who in their right mind would go through the hell that is medical school to make 50K while they are 200K in debt.

Jed
It’s his so-called base. His voting record does suggest more leftist than moderate views, however. I just think he’s a refreshing and likeable person.

Good point Robert. It takes a lot of time, money, and schooling to produce good doctors. They shouldn’t be undervalued.

Just because you wish to call extreme leftists his base doesn’t make it so. The Democratic party is mostly made up of centrists that have ideologies that are all over the map. for you to say the extreme left is his ‘base’ is trying to paint the guy in a bad light.

No one has said anything about paying doctors a fixed salary or how much that salary should be, once again you are dissembling. Wouldn’t make much sense to pay a doctor less than a car mechanic, now wouldn’t it? ($79/hr according to my GM dealership, in truth, they may pay those mexicans about $15) The healthcare issue is much bigger than merely doctors pay.

1. I am aghast at the vile terms that some bloggers throw around against political candidates which they oppose. Such language betrays the weakness of your opinion.

2. There are numerous questions that have not yet been asked Senator Obama. Here are some.

a. In 2004 in an interview with the Chicago Tribune Obama opined that the “US might have to conduct surgical strikes in Iran and Pakistan to prevent terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons”.
Q: Did you know that Pakistan was our ally in 2004?
Does “surgical” include nuclear?
If “surgical” does not include nuclear what do you mean by it?
Is this still your opinion today?

b. The Bush administration’s fundamental policy on Israel/Palestine is that the Palestinians must eventually have an independent state of their own provided a set of conditions is met.
Q: If you become the next President and if there is no State of Palestine yet, will you continue this fundamental policy or change it?
If you change the policy, how?

3. In the speeches that you gave in Chicago in 2005 and 2006 you proposed “redeployment” of our troops from Iraq primarily “over the horizon” such as into the Kurdish area of Iraq.
Q: Have you changed your position on “redeployment”?
What do you exactly mean by “getting the troops out of Iraq in March 2008″?

4. In 1999 the US Supreme Court ruled in Campbell vs. Clinton that the appropriation of funds by Congress for a specific war is the equivalent of a declaration of war by the Congress.
Q: Are you familiar with this ruling?
Do you agree that your votes “to approve funding for the troops” approved of the state of the Iraq war before the vote and authorized President Bush to continue the war as he deems necessary as Commander in Chief?
Do you agree that “supporting the troops” implies “supporting what the troops do” and that in Iraq the troops wage a war?
Do you understand that you have in fact supported the war from the day you enterd the Senate?

5. Mexico, Central America, and much of South America is drifting away from the US.
Q: What do you plan to as President to reverse this development?

Jed,

Nobody on here is talking about doctor pay, but I am and doctors everywhere are. The quality of our physicians and thus the overall quality of healthcare depend on it. It isn’t a question of a fixed salary (that wouldn’t happen), it is a question of patients being able to choose the doctor they want to see and doctors being able to bill for services rendered. Billing medicaid and medicare is hard enough as it is. There has to be a better solution.

“Just because you wish to call extreme leftists his base doesn’t make it so. The Democratic party is mostly made up of centrists…”

-

No and no. I didn’t label his base “extreme leftists”. His voting record appeals moreso that group and it’s been well-documented that leftists heavily support Obama. I didn’t make the call; watch literaly any news channel/show and you’ll see thats the general agreement. “So-called” doesn’t mean “my call” so don’t spin every single thing I ever post!

Secondly, neither Republicans or Democrats are made up of mostly “centrists”. Independents are made of of centrists (look at the meaning of the word).

That was to Jed, by the way.

T.N. Vijay Kumar
Damn… for the love of whatever you believe in, just make a link.

Today(2/21)has been a revelation as to how the “Media” will deal with attempting to keep the Republicans raking in our tax dollars and, focusing for hours on non-news regarding Anna Nicole Smith.

MSNBC and the other Republican Propaganda networks are going after Clinton and Obama-let’s “divide and conquer the Demos”…

Clinton’s(Bill’s) presidency is accused of “being reckless” from a “Chubby Republican strategist” who must be wearing blinders while meandering among the corrupt/war-mongering Bush dynasty…

The media will attempt to take down any viable Democratic opposition-let’s not let it destroy the Two-Party system, again.

Chris Matthews is especially disgusting when he almost had a fit yesterday when “featuring” a smack-down with a Democratic Senator from Missouri(New to Media Politics)when she uttered the dreaded Tax Breaks for the wealthy are depleting the military programs/funding for veterens(wounded)and, had his allegiance to NBC(Big Oil/Military munitions/the twisted White House, now) was never more apparent….

Chris needs to Con less and do more beauty pageants, he is too obvious a Republican Apologist to be a professional “journalist”….

Where is he when it comes to the Libby trial and just who are the real traitors(?)

What about the nine senators(Johnson has an excuse) who never showed up for a senate vote like McCain(, when it concerns the troops he so lamely wants to continue in a A Sell-Out, too)….

Where is journalistic credibility when all the networks cover, are minor political spats, Smith(Exploited in life and death), Spears new hair-challenged head, “American Idol” and, allow Bush/Rove/Cheney to continue to Bungle/Bleed/Bully our Country Dry?

Who owns and controls the media? The Republican Party who are intent on continuing a One Party System…

(Geffen needs to reign it in or he might as well donate to to the Repubicans).Donate your money to the Dems but much less conversation-totally think you are clueless as to how good a President(really elected) Clinton was…

Why didn’t RS cover some of the stuff really going on today? You need to be current and on top of it-not covering pap….

man, that kumar guy is a dick. He must know we’re just going to page past his shit.

Anyway. Dude, we could argue all week about how you want to lable people. Obviously anyone that doesn’t see the world through your own little narrow view is a ‘leftist’, that’s what we’ve learned of you over the last few months. Whether you call it ‘far left’ or ‘extreme left’ you mean the same thing. Regardless of what you want to believe, the extremists in either any party are the minority, most people are a smorgesborg of ideas and points of view that don’t conform to any particular strict set of rules or ideals. That is the same in any political system, I believe it was you who said other countries cound’t have leftist of rightist because they didn’t have our political system, that is incorrect and disingenous.

“I believe it was you who said other countries cound’t have leftist of rightist because they didn’t have our political system, that is incorrect and disingenous.”

-

I’m quite sure I never said that. A while ago I DID mention that you can’t compare each party the same 100 or more years ago as you could today because each has evolved into something different. Please check before attributing a quote to someone. You really have to do that before using someone’s quotes to make a point (don’t take this as an insult, but it’s called being responsible).

And Obama is a leftist. Look at his voting record and main supporters. I didn’t decide this; it’s the general agreement between most every political advisor on any station in America. I still like him, but just disagree with some of his ideologies.

Cake,

You are kidding, right? MSNBC is a republican propaganda network?!?! Maybe I read your post wrong. It had to have been written as sarcasm because nobody actually watching the news would come to the same conclusions as you have. NBC is one of the most liberal stations out there. Chris Matthews is a former dem speech writer who sides with dems 90% of the time. And isn’t MSNBC the station with Keith Olbermann?!?! LOL!!!

Maybe you should do some research (here is a hint…there is a new blog on this page about Olbermann) before you post this stuff. The media have already moved away from Bush and have moved on to the 08 election, which means Dems have gotten front page coverage for the last few weeks. Did you not see all the coverage from the convention in Nevada?

Roger Repubican

Hello! One clever Liberal news anchor/host to Ten Convoluted Conservative hosts/anchors does not a fair representation, make…

Fifty-fifty would be appropriate, guy! As it is now, we have Shabby; like former Republican Congressmen, former Republican politicians(Scarborough, Bucannhan) doing political commentary. (Let’s make it even, anyhow)…(Look at CNN)…More shabby..

The majority of the Country is polling way left of Fascism-the news networks like to misrepresent that fact-sorry to break it to ‘ya, Roger…

Chris Matthews Was a former Democratic Speechwriter who is anything but Democratic Now…

He is a Blond Bush/Republican Cheer-leader and he Panders to the “Right”…

His brothers are ran as Repubes in various political races.

Clue-In, sometime..(LOL)

Roger?

Republican?

Wrong again Cake. Neither.

Republicans must love you though. It’s delusional wackos like you that get Republicans elected. Shouldn’t you be in Florida trying to get the 2000 election overturned?

Roger Republican, you seem to be alittle overly Defensive…

And “delusional” might describe someone who seems to be in a Bush Bubble that disregards the disasters/lies/Fascism that seems to be the Rule of the Day(the past six years) under the Bush Regime.
(Karl just loves German political history).

Delusional describes all the people who are ignoring how badly our Country is being misrepresented since the Republicans have had the Majority.

Now, the Democrats are trying to effect a change and a challenge to open the books and find out what has been done(under the guise of “leadership”)for the past six years.

I don’t have to reveal the death of democracy in initiated by the Bush “Campaign Team”(Ha)Florida, 2000.

Most Americans, HBO, Cornell University, Princeton, several networks, most newspapers have concluded the Cheat-In…

It is simply the refusal and arrogance of certain Republicans to admit how badly the 2000 non-election was stolen…(Most Republicans I know, were horribly disgusted by the Obvious Criminal Act to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters by Harris, Jeb Bush, certain Florida “Election Officials”)…

The “Whacko” is you-anyone who is a Bush-apologist and has ignored he and his “administration’s” many criminal acts and inept governing that has turned Fascist, is seriously “Wisdom-Challenged”…

Cont rolled society, controlled press/media/invasion of privacy/the war on the middleclass/war and wars planned to profit the oil industry and munitions execs, Republican business interests and politicians, theft of our safety-net services(our infra-structure) to fatten tax cuts for the wealthy and Corporate, contempt for the Constitution, the lack of support for military benefits for the people actually risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, the phony display of “nationalism” that is a Fascist trademark(while military families are robbed of support and benefits), the disregard for the Will of the Majority of Americans but Loyalty to Corrupt Oil Corporations and allowing them to dictate policies and Wars, is strictly UnAmerican…

And you, and your sorry compatriots in chaos are Prime Examples…

You insult the intelligence of everyone by your Chosen Blindess to the Destruction Your Party and its Leaders have done and our doing to Our Country(And no surprise that you would deny your sheeplike apologetics for the Most Corrupt and Greedy of “Presidents”…(Maybe its Lieberman-”He is an independent” or is it a Republican, or is it a Democrat)…(Like McCain, Romney, Giuliani the Story changes daily)..

You Are A Fable-Follower and a pathetic example, at that…

Stay in your Bubble-Reality Might
bite you….Something has already taken the fun out of it, it must be tough to be a Republican Sycophant,

Robert | 2/22/2007, 10:41 pm EST

Roger?

Republican?

Wrong again Cake. Neither.

Republicans must love you though. It’s delusional wackos like you that get Republicans elected. Shouldn’t you be in Florida trying to get the 2000 election overturned?

-

Oh, brillant observation! When will the far left learn that their ignorant, off-base rhetoric is really hurting their party and giving moderate (*cough*… responsible) Democrats a bad name?

Cake,

Sorry, didn’t want to read your entire post (book). I know the talking points and saved myself the time. And to think you are the one who called me “defensive”?!?!

You libs crack me up. Everyone who doesn’t agree with your drooling rants is a republican in your hate filled minds. How sad that you can’t sit back and enjoy life because you are so filled with anger.

I stopped reading your post when you said that “most Americans and HBO” know that there was a “cheat-in”. Please don’t speak for “most Americans”. Oh and HBO is hardly an unbiased source.

Lastly, you can keep calling me a republican, but you will still be wrong. Not everyone who can see through you is a republican.

The 2000 election. Hilarious shit. Cons can’t ever talk about activist judges after that one (they will anyway because the default mental state of a con is complete stupidity). Let’s see: the Federal supreme court reprimands the Florida supreme court for following the Florida legislature in determining how to recount Florida votes. On this reasoning they stop the recount (Federal judicial activism). A week later at 10pm on the day the election results “must” be certified the Federal Supreme court reprimands the Florida supreme court for not bucking the Florida legislatures’ rules and instituting their own rules (which would have been thrown out immediately by the Fed supreme court as an example of judicial overreach). The popular term to describe the Florida courts‘ situation is “Catch 22” and is a naked political grab for power by conservatives (Scalia and Thomas did not recuse themselves from the case even though both had family members working for the Bush team).

Add to that, Bush v. Gore will not be cited as precedent for any case following, even though doing so would ensure “equal protection” for all voters (a.k.a the same voting equipment country wide). The funniest thing about the supreme court decision is that it invalidates returns for every single state in the u.s. under it’s equal protection reasoning yet this was only applied to the state of Florida in 2000. Ohio’s voting process was not questioned, nor New Hampshire, etc.. Naked power grab. The only way the cons could win the election.

Normal | 2/20/2007, 1:06 pm EST

Hallzee,

Are you sure you are talking about Obama or Rudy G in NY? Rudy has the same views. If you look up the statistics majority of the USA are left wing liberals.
—————————-

You need to look up some statistics. The fact is that only about 15% of the U.S. is liberal, 35% conservative, and 60% moderate. This fact has been documented many times and is accepted by both parties.