These sound like questions for beauty contestants. Come to think of it ….

What happened to the REAL questions?

The tuff ones that required an answer that required conviction…and not just a smiley sound byte.

This “campaign” is a joke.

SS,

Is that YOU!!??!! Not like you to use something that approximates a name.

i am a man ~ i have no weaknesses…

I’ll bet Obama’s biggest weakness if white women..

I’ll bet Obama’s biggest weakness is White women,
I’m sorry for the mis-post earlier

i hate to agree with John Edwards but Hes right when He says Obama has an academic approach to the issues. with the dumbing down of America the academic way is not going to reach the people. Thats why Chillary is winning Clinton INC knows how to run a campaign thats smart but not to smart.

Let’s call that “Chillery” comment what it kinda sounds like: unAmerican.

Let me see if I can use my psychic powers to home in on where that comment came from…let’s see…I see a trailer park surrounded by beer cans with a well-broken-in front seat from a 72 nova in pride of place beside the front door next to the discarded tires…..

I invite that person into the 21st century.

Further, Obama’s comment about
being an ordinary person” rings uncomfortably true. He is still an everyday American. He is not experienced. It shows. His voice often shakes. Not a good sign.

Truth: he’s on his “trial run” to see how he plays. His big chance will be two terms down the road.
With a little more practical experience and a little distancing from corporate America, I might well vote for him. He needs to recognize, also, that wishing for multiple choice (like going second in his response, after he was clued in) is not a normal Presidential option when addressing Congress or important heads of state.

The ability to analyze, deduce and draw accurate and reasonable conclusions about meaning and nuance while engaged in conversation and debate with others is actually a requirement of the job. In other words, ya gotta think on your feet, Mr. B.

My biggest worry is that Obama’s obvious lack of experience and well-considered research as to what is BEST for our country~~ should he manage to reach the White House by hook, crook, or misguided “I have a dream” loyalty this time around ~~ might lead to the Democratic equivalent to a Karl Rove nightmare in the White House, hand up the President’s butt, resulting in acquiring “power” (and a post-White House corporate position for big bucks) and NOT “providing for the common good” and “promoting the general welfare.”

Don’t need that again. The Karl Rove’s aren’t named on the ballot. They can’t be voted out. So take care if you see any lack of well thought out planning based on the people’s desires.

So Obama, play nice, be humble, learn well, bide your time, and stay away from lobbyists.
Get your sea legs. And don’t even give the appearance of putting compromise on the table as available in exchange for campaign contributions.

Hear Here!!

Fann,clearly youre not dumbed down. i dont see how giving a candidate a nickname is unamerican to me being able to call the senator from New York Chillary is what America is about.

Ray,

Nor are you. You know what you’re saying and you obviously choose to demean HRC. Your right. But you have to ask yourself why. Only you can answer. If you’re okay with that, then so be it.

I think you’ll agree with Fann that such epithets often reflect an inner bias. Let’s hope that’s not so for you.

For the record, I thought the term sexist. We can get into all that there stuff, but to what end?

Issues and positions, Ray, issues and positions.

DD, heres Senator Clinton on the issues voted against tax cuts voted for the Iraq war and the patriot act.

Ray,

I’m not sure which tax cuts you’re referring to, but given the ‘depth’ of our national debt, I would think tax cuts would NOT be a good idea. If you mean the tax cuts for the wealthy, good for her.

As for the Iraq War, it can be argued that the vote wasn’t specifically for war but let’s disregard that for a moment. Given the ‘run up’ to the war by the liars on the Right, that includes Dupe Powell, and the paranoia sweeping post-9/11 America, a person would be hard pressed NOT to vote authority for military action, which is what they voted for. To my knowledge, we’ve never declared ‘war’ against Iraq.

In any event, it was a foregone conclusion the authority would be granted, the Cons controlled Congress. Votes at that juncture were all political posturing, based on what the individual hoped to gain, or not lose, by the vote. If you’re a Senator from NY, and I believe HRC was/is, and your number 1 city has been ‘bombed’ by Arab speaking terrorists and the country is on the way to warring on them, in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq, wouldn’t you NOT be doing your constituents a service by voting against it? (That’s a REALLY bad sentence, but I think you got the drift.) Moreover, if your goal is to have a say, politically, in your state, would shooting yourself in the foot serve any useful purpose?

Much can be said for the Patriot Act. On balance, I don’t believe it to be as heinous an ‘act’ as invading Iraq, but even if certain rights were compromised, it’s reasonable to assume that they can be restored when sanity takes hold again.

It’s BASEBALL Ray … oops, sorry, It’s politics, Ray. If you want to get anything done, you have to bend with the wind. FDR did it, JFK did it. I have a sense even Abe did it. Hell, he suspended habeus corpus. What would you have said to that?

You have to do what you think is best at the time. Sometimes that’s a tough call. The political landscape is littered with martyrs who stood up for principle. Nothing changed and they’re gone. What’s the point?

DD, i was for Afghanistan, it was right to invade and try to catch terrorits. On Iraq i doubted Saddam had wmds. Tax cuts are good. You cant blame tax cuts for the recession.

Dirty Dennis~~

HEAR HERE right back atcha.
Good show.